UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PUBLICATIONS 

COLLEGE  OF  AGRICULTURE 

AGRICULTURAL  EXPERIMENT  STATION 

BERKELEY.  CALIFORNIA 


MARIOUT  BARLEY 

WITH   A   DISCUSSION   OF 
BARLEY  CULTURE   IN   CALIFORNIA 

BY 

G.  W.  HENDRY 


BULLETIN  No.  312 

October,  1919 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  PRESS 
BERKELEY 

1919 


EXPERIMENT  STATION  STAFF 


HEADS  OF  DIVISIONS 


Thomas  Forsyth  Hunt,  Dean. 

Edward  J.  Wickson,  Horticulture  (Emeritus). 

Walter  Mulford,  Forestry,  Director  of  Resident  Instruction. 

Herbert  J.  Webber,  Director  Agricultural  Experiment  Station. 

B.  H.  Crocheron,  Director  of  Agricultural  Extension. 
Hubert  E.  Van  Norman,  Vice-Director;  Dairy  Management. 

James  T.  Barrett,  Acting  Director  of  Citrus  Experiment  Station;  Plant  Path- 
ology. 
William  A.  Setchell,  Botany. 
Myer  E.  Jaffa,  Nutrition. 
Charles  W.  Woodworth,  Entomology. 
Ralph  E.  Smith,  Plant  Pathology. 
J.  Eliot  Coit,  Citriculture. 
John  W.  Gilmore,  Agronomy. 
Charles  F.  Shaw,  Soil  Technology. 
John  W.  Gregg,  Landscape  Gardening  and  Floriculture. 
Frederic  T.  Bioletti,  Viticulture  and  Enology. 
Warren  T.  Clarke,  Agricultural  Extension. 
John  S.  Burd,  Agricultural  Chemistry. 
Charles  B.  Lipman,  Soil  Chemistry  and  Bacteriology. 
Clarence  M.  Haring,  Veterinary  Science  and  Bacteriology. 
Ernest  B.  Babcock,  Genetics. 
Gordon  H.  True,  Animal  Husbandry. 
Fritz  W.  Woll,  Animal  Nutrition. 
W.  P.  Kelley,  Agricultural  Chemistry. 
H.  J.  Quayle,  Entomology. 
Elwood  Mead,  Rural  Institutions. 
H.  S.  Reed,  Plant  Physiology. 
J.  0.  Whitten,  Pomology. 
Frank  Adams,  Irrigation  Investigations. 

C.  L.  Roadhouse,  Dairy  Industry. 

F.  L.  Griffin,  Agricultural  Education. 
John  E.  Dougherty,  Poultry  Husbandry. 
S.  S.  Rogers,  Olericulture. 
L.  J.  Fletcher,  Agricultural  Engineering. 
Edwin  C.  Voorhies,  Assistant  to  the  Dean. 


Division  of  Agronomy 

John  W.  Gilmore  P.  B.  Kennedy 

B.  A.  Madson  G.  W.  Hendry 

W.  W.  Mackie  W.  S.  Wilkinson 

J.  A.  Denny  L.  G.  Goar 


MARIOUT   BARLEY 

WITH  A  DISCUSSION  OF  BARLEY  CULTURE  IN  CALIFORNIA 

By  G.  W.  HENDRY 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Introduction 58 

Agricultural  History 58 

Specific  Qualities  of  Mariout  Barley 62 

Drought  resistance 62 

Suitability  to  spring  planting 66 

Draft  on  soil  moisture 67 

Wind  resistance 68 

Special  fitness  for  Tulare  Lake  region 69 

Special  fitness  for  double  cropping 70 

Hay  values 70 

Limitations  and  defects 70 

Detailed  description  of  Mariout 71 

Seedling  development 71 

Life  period 72 

Physical  analysis  of  Mariout 73 

Physical  analysis  of  Coast  (common) 73 

Field  characteristics 73 

Yield  record  at  Davis,  Calif 73 

Yield  record  in  other  parts  of  Calif 76 

Imperial  Valley  substation 76 

Fresno  (Kearney  Park)  substation 76 

U.  S.  Plant  Introduction  Garden,  Chico 76 

Livermore  Valley 76 

Yield  record  at  Highmore,  S.  Dak 76 

Yield  record  at  Moccasin,  Mont 77 

Yield  record  at  Moro,  Ore 78 

Yield  record  at  Aberdeen,  Idaho 79 

Yield  record  at  Burns,  Ore 79 

Malting  properties 80 

Tillage  methods ; 82 

Annual  or  biennial  cropping 82 

Disking  the  stubble 82 

Fall  plowing 83 

How  to  summer  fallow 84 

Care  of  the  fallow 86 

How  to  prepare  land  for  annual  cropping 87 

At  what  season  to  plant  barley 88 

Effect  of  planting  date  upon  yield  (table) 90 

Effect  of  planting  date  upon  development  (table) 91 

Manner  of  planting 92 

Rate  of  planting 94 

Spring  harrowing 94 

Choice  of  seed 95 

Home  grown  vs.  imported  seed 95 

Harvesting  methods 96 

Duration  of  north  winds  (table) 100 

Occurrence  of  northers  (table) 100 

Velocity  of  northers  (table) 100 

Shattering  losses  (table) 103 

Cost  of  production  combine  way  (table) 104 

Cost  of  production  binder  way  (table) 104 

Net  profits  compared 105 

Digest 106 


58  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

INTRODUCTION 

Barley  is  the  leading  cereal  crop  of  California,  and  is  grown  and 

fed  here  in  larger  quantities  than  in  any  other  state.     The  average 

disposition  of  the  crop  has  been  about  as  follows : 

Per  cent 

Fed  and  used  for  seed  in  California 53 

Exported    37 

Used   for   malting 10 

Commensurate  with  the  economic  importance  of  the  crop,  however, 
comparatively  little  advancement  in  tillage  methods  has  been  made, 
and  it  is  not  a  little  curious  that  only  one  variety  is  extensively  grown 
and  this,  the  Coast  or  common  barley,  constitutes  more  than  99  per 
cent  of  the  entire  production  of  the  state.  Obviously  this  is  an  error 
in  itself,  for  the  excellent  reason  that  no  single  variety  could  con- 
ceivably outyield  all  other  varieties,  under  the  diversity  of  soils  and 
climates  existing  within  the  barley  producing  areas  of  the  state. 

Concerning  the  origin  of  Coast  or  common  barley  we  have  no  exact 
records  to  refer  to,  but  inasmuch  as  barley  of  an  identical  type  has 
long  been  grown  in  the  south  of  Spain,  it  is  not  improbable  that  it 
found  its  way  to  California  from  that  region,  through  the  agency  of 
the  Spanish  conquerors  and  the  missionaries  who  followed  them. 
Further  evidence  of  this  is  supplied  by  the  knowledge  that  this  variety 
was  grown  from  the  earliest  times  about  the  mission  settlements  in 
California.  Common  (Coast)  barley  is  well  adapted  to  Pacific  Coast 
conditions,  but  why  it  should  have  been  grown  here  practically  to  the 
exclusion  of  all  other  varieties  is  difficult  to  explain,  especially  in 
view  of  the  fact  that  several  other  varieties  have  been  found  to  excel 
it  in  producing  capacity. 

Our  present  purpose  is  to  awaken  a  general  interest  in  the  subject 
of  barley  improvement,  and  especially  to  introduce  the  variety  Mariout 
(Calif,  no.  2241).  It  is  no  part  of  our  purpose  to  replace  the  common 
variety  with  Mariout,  but  rather  to  supplement  it  under  the  special 
conditions  to  which  Mariout  is  better  adapted,  and  thus  widen  the 
range  of  successful  barley  culture  in  California. 

AGRICULTURAL    HISTORY    OF    MARIOUT   BARLEY 

But  a  mere  fragment  of  the  early  history  of  Mariout  barley  has 
come  down  to  us  from  antiquity.  It  is  said  to  have  been  extensively 
grown  by  the  Romans  during  their  occupation  of  the  Mariut  Lake 
region,  south  of  Alexandria,  Egypt,  and  skirting  the  Sahara  Desert. 
While   governing  this   region,   referred   to   in   Roman   literature   as 


MARIOUT   BARLEY 


59 


Fig.  1. — Representative  grains  of  Mariout  barley,  left,  and  common  (Coast) 
barley,  right,  enlarged  12  diameters.  The  two  varieties  are  easily  distinguishable 
by  means  of  the  rachilla  (bristle)  shown  in  situ  at  "A".  The  Mariout  rachilla 
is  bristly,  the  common  rachilla  is  smooth.  This  character  is  constant  under  all 
conditions,  and  is  a  ready  means  of  detecting  mixture  of  the  two  varieties. 


60  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Mareotis,  the  Romans  made  some  pioneer  advances  in  the  art  of  dry 
farming,  and  their  quick  perception  of  the  drouth-resistant  properties 
of  Mariout  barley  is  but  another  evidence  of  the  acumen  of  this  race 
in  matters  pertaining*  to  agriculture. 

The  variety  has  been  perpetuated  since  Roman  times  by  the 
Bedouins,  who  introduced  it  into  the  arable  regions  of  the  Sahara 
Desert,  where  it  has  thrived  in  the  dry  desert  heat.  The  production 
of  it  by  the  Bedouins  has  been  attended  by  marked  success,  and  their 
surplus  production  has  been  found  an  outlet  in  England  and  Scotland, 
where  it  has  been  used  for  malting  purposes,  and  has  fetched  a 
premium  over  English-grown  barley  of  about  10  shillings  ($2.48) 
per  quarter  (8.24  bushels). 

The  first  recorded  appearance  of  Mariout  in  the  United  States 
occurred  on  November  7,  1903,  when  a  sample  of  240  pounds  was 
received  by  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  from  Mr. 
Geo.  P.  Foaden  of  the  Khedival  Agricultural  Society,  Cairo,  Egypt. 
This  seed  was  assigned  the  S.  P.  I.  (Seed  and  Plant  Introduction) 
no.  9877,  and  later  the  C.  I.  (Cereal  Investigation)  no.  261.  In  1904 
it  was  distributed  to  the  experiment  stations  in  the  arid  western  states, 
and  the  first  planting  was  made  in  California  at  the  Yuba  City  field 
station  in  December  of  that  year.  The  first  impression  made  by  it 
in  California  was  so  unfavorable  that  it  was  discarded  as  being  with- 
out promise  in  this  state,  and  unworthy  of  further  trial.  By  the 
greatest  good  fortune,  however,  a  second  sample  of  one-fourth  pound 
was  secured  the  following  year  through  the  courtesy  of  the  E.  Clemens 
Horst  Company  of  San  Francisco,  who  in  turn  had  obtained  it  directly 
from  their  London  office,  and  the  present  stock  of  Mariout  in  Califor- 
nia is  from  this  source.  This  sample  bore  no  other  designation  than 
"Sample-1"  (S-l)  and  was  not  suspected  of  being  Mariout  in  another 
guise  until  near  maturity,  when  its  unmistakable  characteristics 
disclosed  its  identity.  In  its  second  appearance  it  showed  greater 
promise,  and  was  sent  to  the  University  Farm  forthwith  for  a  more 
thorough  trial,  where  it  was  grown  in  the  cereal  nursery  under  close 
observation  until  the  year  1911,  at  which  time  its  six  years  of  good 
performance  merited  an  advancement  of  it  to  the  plot  tests,  in  com- 
petition with  the  highest  yielding  varieties  under  field  competition. 

In  its  first  year  under  field  conditions  it  yielded  at  the  astonish- 
ing rate  of  126.6  bushels  (63.3  sacks)  per  acre,  greatly  exceeding  all 
other  varieties  in  productivity  for  that  season,  and  thereby  establish- 
ing a  record  for  high  yield  at  the  experiment  station  which  has  stood 
unequalled  to  this  day.     During  the  eight  succeeding  years,  1912  to 


MARIOUT  BARLEY 


61 


>>    ■ 


Common  barley  seedlings,   eight  weeks  old,   x/4    natural   size. 


Fig.  2. — Above: 
Below:   Mariout  barley  seedlings,  eight  weeks  old,  %  natural  size. 

Mariout  developes  more  rapidly  both  above  and  below  the  ground.  Note  the 
characteristic  onion-like  appearance  of  the  Mariout  crown;  also  the  more  abundant 
stooling  and  the  earlier  and  more  vigorous  development  of  both  the  temporary 
(seed)  and  the  permanent  (crown)  roots  of  Mariout. 


62  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

1919,  that  it  has  been  under  test  it  has  easily  maintained  a  leading 
rank  among  dozens  of  competing  varieties,  and  has  especially  distin- 
guished itself  in  drouth  years  and  in  spring  planting  tests  (table  5). 
Illustrative  of  its  suitability  for  spring  sowing,  the  following  instance 
is  representative.  The  total  seasonal  rainfall  at  the  University  Farm 
in  1912  was  only  9.46  inches.  This  was  the  most  severe  drouth 
recorded  within  recent  years.  On  Februar}^  2  of  that  year,  field 
plantings  of  Mariout  and  of  common  barley  were  made  under  strictly 
comparable  conditions.  Mariout  yielded  95.15  bushels  (47.57  sacks) 
per  acre,  and  common  barley  41.5  bushels  (20.7  sacks)  per  acre.  In 
a  test  the  same  year,  planted  earlier,  Mariout  outyielded  common 
barley,  but  not  so  decisively  as  in  the  late  planting  test  (table  5). 
This  shows  the  greater  advantage  of  Mariout  over  common  barley  for 
spring  planting. 

At  this  juncture,  seed  for  a  trial  planting  of  twenty  acres  was  sold 
to  Mr.  B.  C.  French,  for  a  test  under  actual  ranch  conditions  near 
Davis,  and  in  this  it  was  at  once  successful  and  fully  sustained  its 
previous  good  record  on  the  University  Farm.  The  following  year, 
1913,  Mr.  Theodore  Oeste,  an  extensive  grain  producer  of  Yolo  County, 
tried  it  and  has  continued  to  produce  it  in  increasingly  large  quantities 
to  the  present  time.  By  degrees  other  local  producers  have  adopted 
it,  and  without  exception  all  have  spoken  strongly  in  its  praise.  To 
date  it  has  excited  more  interest  among  local  growers  than  any  other 
cereal  previously  introduced  by  the  experiment  station,  and  is  each 
year  becoming  more  firmly  established  in  the  opinion  of  all,  as  a  most 
valuable  and  important  addition  to  the  productive  resources  of  the 
county.  We  feel  that  it  marks  an  important  agricultural  advance,  and 
that  the  benefits  to  be  derived  from  its  wider  use  in  California  are 
of  the  first  magnitude. 

In  1917  there  were  about  300  acres  of  this  barley  in  California ;  in 
1918,  700  acres;  in  1919,  3000  acres;  and  from  present  indications  the 
1920  acreage  will  exceed  10,000.  Yolo  County  is  the  center  for  its 
production,  and  all  of  it  originates  within  a  radius  of  twenty  miles 
of  the  University  Farm  (fig.  7). 

SPECIFIC   QUALITIES    OF    MARIOUT    BARLEY 

Drouth  Resistance. — Mariout  has  the  rare  merit  of  never  succum- 
ing  entirely  to  drouth  as  common  (Coast)  barley  sometimes  does. 
When  hard  pressed  for  moisture,  it  concentrates  all  its  strength  in 
the  formation  of  heads,  and  may  produce  them  from  six  to  eight  inches 
above  the  ground.     We  have  observed  such  fields,  which  have  given 


MARIOUT   BARLEY 


63 


Fig.  3. — Above :  Tennessee  Winter  barley  seedlings,  eight  weeks  old,  V^  natural 
size.  Note  heavy  stooling,  and  sturdy,  spreading  winter  habit.  In  the  interior 
valleys  it  must  be  planted  early  in  the  fall  (November-December)  to  succeed  well. 
Below:  Beldi  barley  seedlings,  eight  weeks  old,  %  natural  size.  It  is  somewhat 
more  robust  as  a  seedling  than  common  (Coast)  barley  and  slightly  more  produc- 
tive under  average  conditions. 


Fig.  4. — Representative  heads,  of  front  and  side  views,  of  Mariout  barley  with 
awns  (beards)  partly  removed  to  show  structure.  Mariout  heads  are  stouter,  the 
grains  longer  and  darker,  and  the  outer  glumes  larger  than  those  of  common 
barley. 


Fig.  5. — Representative  heads,  front  and  side  views,  of  common  (Coast)  barley 
with  awns  (beards)  partly  removed  to  show  structure.  Below  in  circle,  typical 
grains,  dorsal  and  ventral  views. 


66 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


the  appearance  of  yielding  seven  sacks  or  less  per  acre,  surprise  every- 
one by  turning  out  fifteen  sacks  per  acre.  It  is  suited  to  high,  exposed 
districts,  and  to  dry  soils  and  seasons.     All  available  experimental 

evidence  from  California 
and  other  states  agree  with 
our  opinions  in  these  par- 
ticulars. 

Suitability  to  Spring 
Planting. — Mariout  may  be 
spring-sown  with  much  bet- 
ter prospect  of  success  than 
the  bulkier  or  more  tardy 
common  (Coast)  barley.  It 
has  evidenced  high  merit 
with  respect  to  yield  on  the 
flood  lands  of  the  Sacra- 
mento River  in  Yolo  County, 
where,  because  of  winter 
inundation,  planting  must 
be  deferred  unlit  the  flood 
waters  recede  in  the  spring; 
plantings  made  here  as  late 
as  April  20,  have  matured 
in  from  seventy-five  to 
eighty  days  and  yielded 
considerably  in  excess  of 
common  barley  similarly 
handled.  A  signal  instance 
illustrating  its  peculiar 
adaptation  to  spring  plant- 
ing, occurred  on  the  higher 
lands  of  Yolo  County  in 
1919,  where   as  a  result  of 


Fig.  6. — Representative  plants 
of  Mariout  barley  (left),  and 
common  (Coast)  barley  (right) . 
Under  favorable  circumstances 
Mariout  attains  a  height  of  3 
feet,  compared  to  5  feet  for  com- 
mon (Coast)  barley.  Mariout 
ripens  earlier,  is  more  drought 
resistant,  uses  less  soil  moisture, 
produces  a  higher  percentage  of 
grain  to  straw,  stools  more,  and 
yields  more  and  better  grain  on 
dry  soils. 


MARIOUT   BARLEY 


67 


deficient  spring  rainfall,  spring-planted  barley  was  a  general  faiulre, 
but  not  so  with  Mariout,  much  of  which  received  no  rain  whatever 
subsequent  to  planting,  yet  yielded  moderately  well  notwithstanding. 

A  circumstance,  illustrating  in  a  singularly  convincing  manner  the 
superior  drouth  resistance  of  Mariout,  is  that  in  late  planted  fields  a 
sprinkling  stand  of  volunteer  common  barley  often  appears  simul- 
taneously with  the  Mariout,  but  in  dry  spring  seasons  like  that  of 
1919,  only  the  Mariout  produces  seed.  This  characteristic  in  itself 
has  enabled  growers  to  maintain  their  seed,  comparatively  free  from 
mixture  with  common  barley  and  much  more  effectively  than  would 
be  practicable  by  any  other  means. 

Draft  on  Soil  Moisture. — Not  the  least  merit  of  Mariout  is  its 
economical  use  of  soil  moisture.  Determinations  made  in  the  Arm- 
strong field  at  the  University  Farm  immediately  after  harvest  in  1919 
showed  a  saving  of  moisture  by  Mariout  as  compared  with  common 
barley,  equivalent  to  1.27  inches  of  rainfall  in  the  surface  three  feet. 
The  results  of  a  large  number  of  determinations  made  to  arrive  at  this 
relationship  are  averaged  and  condensed  for  convenience  of  reference 
in  table  1,  which  follows. 


Table   1, 


-Soil  Moisture  Requirements  of  Mariout  and  Coast    (Common) 

Barley  Compared 


Average  inches  of  rainfall  remaining 
in  soil  after  harvest.     June  4,  1919 


Average  Moisture  draft 


Depth 
1st  foot 

Uncropped 
check 
inches 

...       1.90 

Mariout 
barley 
inches 

1.17 
2.14 
1.44 

Coast 

(Common) 

barley 

inches 

1.04 
1.02 
1.42 

Moisture 

used  by 

Mariout 

inches 

.73 
.07 
.89 

1.69 

Moisture 

used  by 

Coast 

inches 

.86 

1.19 

.91 

Moisture 
saving  in 
favor  of  Mar- 
iout, inches 

.13 

2nd  foot 

2.21 
2.33 

1.12 

3rd  foot 

.02 

Total 

...       6.44 

4.75 

3.48 

2.96 

1.27 

Of  a  total  supply  of  moisture  equivalent  to  6.44  inches  of  rainfall 
remaining  in  the  fallowed  check,  common  barley  had  reduced  this  to 
3.48  inches,  and  Mariout  to  4.75  inches;  the  comparative  moisture 
drafts  were  therefore  2.96  inches,  or  45  per  cent,  and  1.69  inches,  or 
26  per  cent,  respectively. 

This  striking  difference  in  the  use  of  soil  moisture  is  of  the  greatest 
practical  importance,  and  must  be  accounted  the  most  significant 
reason  for  the  well-known  drouth  resistance  of  the  variety.  The 
saving  of  an  inch  or  more  of  rain  in  a  dry  season  might  well  determine 
the  success  or  failure  of  a  crop,  and  under  continuous  cropping  the 
cumulative  effect  of  such  saving  over  a  period  of  years  would  be  still 


68  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 

greater.  For  these  reasons,  there  is  little  doubt  that  many  of  the 
dry  soils  which  we  see  carrying  scanty  crops  of  common  barley  would 
give  a  more  remunerative  return  if  sown  to  Mariout. 

The  direct  effect  of  Mariout 's  lighter  moisture  draft  is  always 
apparent  in  the  growth  of  weeds,  which  because  of  the  greater  moisture 
supply  remaining,  grow  taller  and  continue  green  later  in  Mariout 
fields  than  in  common  barley  fields. 

Wind  Resistance. — The  weightiest  consideration  in  the  choice  of 
either  a  wheat  or  barley  variety  for  the  interior  valleys  of  California 
is  resistance  to  wind,  and  the  ability  to  stand  up  in  the  field  and  hold 
its  grain  retentively  in  the  head  without  shattering  or  shelling  out 
after  ripening.  The  almost  exclusive  use  of  the  combined  harvester 
necessitates  the  employment  of  such  varieties.  Club  wheat  has  taken 
precedence  over  all  other  wheats  in  California  for  many  years,  for 
no  other  reason  than  that  it  does  not  shatter  during  the  strong  harvest 
winds,  and  consequently  does  not  have  to  be  cut  early  to  avoid  hulling. 
Barley  is  more  brittle  and  suffers  greater  wind  damage  than  wheat. 
A  strong  north  wind  of  three  days'  duration  swept  the  Sacramento 
Valley  on  May  30,  31,  and  June  1,  1919,  at  the  very  start  of  the 
harvest  season,  and  resulted  in  a  loss  of  fully  25  per  cent  of  the  entire 
barley  crop  of  the  valley.  The  Mariout  fields  of  Yolo  County,  how- 
ever, proved  an  exception,  and  withstood  the  wind  in  a  manner  pre- 
cisely analogous  to  that  of  the  well  known  Club  wheat  (table  2).  This 
characteristic  is  in  itself  a  strong  recommendation  for  this  variety  in 
the  interior  valleys  of  California. 

Immediately  following  harvest  on  the  University  Farm  in  1919,  a 
critical  examination  of  the  stubble  fields  was  made,  and  the  exact 
shattering  losses  for  both  common  and  Mariout  barley  accurately 
determined.  Both  fields  were  planted  November  9 ;  Mariout  ripened 
May  15,  common  barley  June  6 ;  both  were  cut  with  the  combined 
harvester,  June  17  (fig.  24).  Mariout  stood  for  thirty-three  days 
after  ripening ;  common  for  eleven  days.  Both  varieties  were  exposed 
to  the  strong  north  wind  of  May  30,  31,  and  June  1,  and  if  Mariout 
had  been  cut  when  ripe,  it  would  have  escaped  the  wind  entirely. 
Mariout  yielded  39.5  sacks  (79  bu.)  per  acre,  and  common  barley 
19  sacks  (38  bu.)  per  acre,  but  practically  as  much  grain  was  left  on 
the  ground  in  the  common  field  as  was  put  in  the  sacks,  and  the  differ- 
ence in  yield  is  more  indicative  of  the  relative  resistance  to  shattering 
than  of  the  actual  production  of  the  two  varieties.  The  harvesting, 
however,  was  done  strictly  in  accordance  with  commonly  employed 
methods,  and  it  is  a  fair  indication  of  what  may  be  expected  from  the 


MARIOUT   BARLEY  69 

two  varieties  under  existing  conditions.  Indeed,  many  fields  of  com- 
mon barley,  less  protected  from  the  wind,  in  the  neighborhood  were 
so  completely  "whipped  out"  as  not  to  repay  the  expense  of  cutting 
them. 

The  actual  shattering  losses  were  determined  by  picking  up  by 
hand  all  heads  and  grain  remaining  on  the  ground  in  accurately  meas- 
ured plots,  three  of  which  were  chosen  for  each  field.  The  average 
results  are  compiled  in  table  2. 

Table  2. — Actual  Yield,  Actual  Shattering  Loss,  and  Total  Possible  Yield 
for  Mariout  and  Coast  (Common)  Barley  at  the  University  Farm  in  1919 

Per  cent. 
Area  of  Actual  yield  Actual  shattering  Total  possible  of  loss 

test  per  acre  loss  per  acre  yield  per  acre  through 

Variety  acres       Bushels         Sacks         Bushels         Sacks         Bushels         Sacks       shattering 

Mariout  9.01         79       (39.5)        10.81     (5.4)        89.81     (44.9)  12 

Common         2.84        38       (19.0)        33.2       (16.6)        71.2       (35.6)  46 

(Coast) 

i  Duplicate  4.5  acre  plots. 

The  loss  for  Mariout  was  10.81  bushels  (5.4  sacks)  per  acre,  and 
for  Coast  barley  33.2  bushels  (16.6  sacks)  per  acre.  Mariout  doubled 
common  barley  in  yield  for  the  reason  that  it  lost  only  one-third  as 
much  through  shattering,  but  had  both  varieties  been  cut  with  the 
binder  "in  the  dough"  (fig.  22),  and  shattering  losses  eliminated 
entirely,  Mariout  would  still  have  outyielded  common  by  18.6  bushels 
(9.3  sacks)  per  acre,  and  had  the  period  of  exposure  to  the  weather 
after  ripening  been  equal,  the  advantage  of  Mariout  would  doubtless 
have  been  still  greater. 

There  are  two  reasons  why  Mariout  is  resistant  to  shattering. 
First,  its  more  pliable  straw  (fig.  6),  causes  the  heads  to  nod  at 
maturity  in  such  a  manner  that  they  hang  in  a  mat  about  14  inches 
above  the  ground,  protected  from  the  wind.  Secondly,  the  heads  of 
Mariout  are  stouter  and  more  compact  (figs.  4  and  5),  and  even  late 
plantings,  which  stand  more  erectly,  do  not  shatter  as  much  as  the 
more  slender  heads  of  common  barley. 

Special  Fitness  for  the  Tulare  Lake  Region. — Extensive  losses  have 
occurred  in  the  Tulare  Lake  and  Kings  River  grain  districts  as  a 
result  of  floods  before  and  during  the  regular  harvest  season  (fig.  9). 
The  vital  consideration  here  is  to  advance  the  harvest  date  as  far  as 
possible  ahead  of  the  earliest  high  water.  Mariout  is  climatically  well 
suited  to  this  region,  and  by  virtue  of  its  earlier  ripening  (table  4) 
its  wider  use  is  recommended  as  a  means  of  escaping  flood  losses. 


70  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Special  Fitness  for  Double  Cropping. — In  the  irrigated  districts 
of  the  San  Joaquin  Valley,  the  growing  of  a  summer  crop,  such  as 
beans  or  grain  sorghum  after  grain  harvest  has  become  popular 
(fig.  21).  The  usual  procedure  is  to  irrigate  and  plant  grain  from 
September  25  to  November  5,  to  harvest  the  same  from  May  15  to 
June  15,  and  to  irrigate  and  plant  beans  or  grain  sorghum  from 
May  25  to  June  25 ;  harvesting  the  same  from  September  15  to  Octo- 
ber 25,  in  time  to  replant  to  grain  from  September  25  to  November  25. 
By  such  a  system  the  land  yields  two  crops  in  a  twelve-month  cycle, 
but  quick-maturing,  short-season  varieties  are  necessary.  Mariout 
offers  a  considerable  advantage  over  the  common  barley  for  such  pur- 
poses because  it  shortens  the  winter  crop  season  by  about  two  weeks. 

Hay  Values. — A  character  of  minor  importance,  yet  one  not  to 
be  overlooked  in  this  region,  is  the  utility  of  a  grain  variety  for  hay- 
making purposes.  Barley  in  its  many  variety  is  inferior  to  either 
oats  or  wheat  as  a  hay  crop,  both  from  the  standpoint  of  yield  and 
feeding  value.  At  the  University  Farm  common  barley  has  yielded 
only  4.51  tons  of  cured  hay  per  acre,  compared  with  6.43  and  7.05 
tons  per  acre  for  red  oats  and  Pacific  Bluestem  (White  Australian) 
wheat,  respectively.  Mariout  is  even  less  productive  as  a  hay  crop 
than  common  barley,  and  has,  on  an  average,  produced  15  per  cent 
less  hay.  Mariout  hay,  however,  is  finer  and  more  palatable  than 
common  barley  hay,  and  the  plant  has  the  property  of  making  con- 
siderably more  second  growth  than  common  barley,  especially  if  cut 
in  the  ' '  blossom ' '  or  early  milk.  In  this  respect  it  resembles  rye  more 
than  any  of  the  other  barley  varieties  tested,  and  must  owe  this 
property  in  some  degree  to  its  lighter  moisture  requirement. 

Limitations  and  Defects. — Mariout  is  a  more  generally  satisfactory 
variety  for  California  than  common  (Coast)  barley,  but  its  most 
serious  limitation  is  its  inability  to  produce  well  in  the  cooler  northern 
districts  and  on  heavy  low-lying  soils,  which  are  wet  for  long  periods 
during  the  winter.  The  variety  "Tennessee  Winter"  (fig.  3)  succeeds 
better  than  either  the  Mariout  or  common  barley  in  such  situations. 
Its  second  defect  is  its  dwarf  stature,  which  in  very  dry  situations 
precludes  the  use  of  the  binder  as  a  harvesting  implement,  but  never 
the  ' '  combine ' '  or  the  header. 

A  third,  and  somewhat  doubtful  objection  to  it  is  its  effect  upon 
weed  growth.  As  previously  suggested,  its  short  stature,  coupled 
with  its  early  ripening  and  lighter  moisture  draft,  gives  the  weeds  a 
greater  opportunity  to  develop,  sometimes  at  the  expense  of  grain 
production.     This  is  especially  apparent  on  foul  land  which  is  fall 


MARIOUT  BARLEY 


71 


planted  without  a  preceding  summer  fallow  to  free  it  of  weeds.  Two 
instances  of  this  came  under  the  writer's  attention  during  the  season 
of  1919.  One  field,  badly  infested  with  mustard  (Brassica  campes- 
tris),  was  divided  into  two  parts  which  were  sown  to  common  and 
Mariout  barley,  respectively.  The  weeds  in  the  "Mariout  half" 
formed  a  canopy  over  the  grain  and  grew  tall  and  late  in  the  season, 
while  those  in  the  "common  half"  matured  earlier  and  did  not 
dominate  the  grain  so  completely.  The  difference  here  is  directly 
attributed  to  the  greater  supply  of  soil  moisture  remaining  in  the 
Mariout  ground  (table  1). 


Fig.  7. — Common  (Coast)  barley  (left),  and  Mariout  barley  (right),  planted 
in  December  and  photographed  in  March.  Note  the  upright  habit,  and  the  earlier 
and  mare  vigorous  spring  growth  of  Mariout.  In  dry  spring  seasons,  Mariout 
shades  the  ground  sooner,  preventing  crusting  and  drying  of  the  soil,  and  by 
virtue  of  its  earlier  ripening,  is  less  dependent  upon  spring  showers  to  carry  it 
to  maturity. 


DETAILED    DESCRIPTION    OF    MARIOUT 

Seedling  Development. — The  early  development  of  Mariout  is  very 
rapid  (fig.  2).  Plants  eight  weeks  old  average  twelve  inches  in  height, 
compared  to  seven  inches  for  common  barley  (fig.  8).  Mariout  shades 
the  ground  sooner  and  thereby  stops  evaporation  earlier  in  the  spring ; 
a  circumstance  contributing  to  its  value  for  spring  seeding  (fig.  8). 
Mariout  maintains  its  lead  in  height  growth  until  about  the  sixteenth 
week,  when  it  passes  rapidly  through  "booting,"  "heading,"  "blos- 
soming," and  "ripening"  without  further  height  development.  Com- 
mon barley,  on  the  other  hand,  starts  slowly,  and  does  not  overtake 
Mariout  until  about  the  sixteenth  week,  and  not  stopping  then,  con- 
tinues to  develop  in  height  for  three  weeks  more,  attaining  ultimately, 
under  favorable  conditions,  a  total  height  of  five  feet  compared  to 


72 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


three  feet  for  Mariout  (fig.  6).  From  the  standpoint  of  harvesting 
with  the  ' '  combine ' '  the  shorter  straw  of  Mariout  is  generally  regarded 
as  an  advantage. 

Life  Period. — Under  average  circumstances  fall-planted  Mariout 
requires  about  152  days  to  ripen;  and  spring-planted  requires  from 
eighty  to  ninety  days.  Coast  barley  under  similar  circumstances 
requires  from  ten  to  twenty  days  longer.  Earliness  is  an  essential 
barley  characteristic  in  all  dry  climates,  including  the  interior  valleys 
of  California,  since  it  enables  the  plant  to  mature  with  a  smaller  and 
less  generally  distributed  rainfall.     Such  is  the  case  wherever  dry- 


Fig.  8. — Pure  strains  of  Mariout  (left),  and  common  barley  (right),  in  the 
increase  nursery  at  the  University  Farm.  Mariout  frequently  escapes  wind  damage 
because  of  its  earlier  ripening,  and  always  resists  wind  because  of  its  habit  of 
growth.  These  plantings  were  made  November  13,  1918;  Mariout  ripened 
May  16,  1919,  and  common  barley  ripened  fifteen  days  later,  on  May  31.  Mariout 
entirely  escaped  the  strong  north  wind  of  May  31,  while  the  common  barley  was 
exposed  to  it  and  shattered  badly. 


farmed  barley  is  produced,  and  the  other  cereals  are  obedient  to  the 
same  law. 

Physical  Analysis  of  Mariout. — Mariout  is  a  smaller  and  less  bulky 
plant  than  common  barley  and  yields  a  higher  percentage  of  grain 
with  a  correspondingly  lower  percentage  of  straw.  It  also  yields  a 
higher  percentage  of  leaf  to  stalk,  as  is  shown  by  the  following  physical 
analysis  of  representative  plants  (fig.  6). 


MARIOUT   BARLEY  73 


Table  3. — Physical  Analysis  of  Mariout  and  Common  Barley 

Mariout     Common 
per  cent,     per  cent. 

Heads  including  grain,  awns,  and  rachis 57.58  43.94 

Straw  cut  at  first  node  above  root  and  immediately  below  head...  30.77  37.57 

Leaves 6.08  5.64 

Stubble  with  roots  as  pulled 5.57  12.85 

Field  Characteristics. — Mariout  differs  from  common  barley  in 
various  minor  particulars ;  although  individual  plants  may  show  some 
variations,  the  two  varieties  as  a  whole,  may  be  roughly  separated 
upon  the  following  points  of  difference. 

Table  4. — Minor  Particulars  in  Which  Mariout  Differs  from  Common  Barley 

Mariout     Common 

Average  number  days  to  ripen' (fall  planted) 152  162 

Average  number  days  to  ripen  (spring  planted) 85  100 

Average  number  tillers  per  plant,  drilled  80  lb.  per  A 9  6 

Average  number  joints  per  stalk 7  8 

Average  length  of  internodes  in  inches 5  7 

Average  length  of  leaf  in  cm 10.5  12 

Average  width  of  leaf  in  cm 1.9  1.7 

Average  number  permanent  roots  50  days  old  (fig.  2) 4  2 

Average  number  temporary  roots  50  days  old  (fig.  2) 6  5 

Average  length  of  head  inches 3  3.5 

Average  number  grains  per  spike 66  84 

Shape  of  spike oblong  fusiform 

Average  length  grain  in  mm 14  12 

Average  width  grain  in  mm 4  4 

Color  grain yellow  straw 

brown 

Rachilla bristly  smooth 

YIELD    RECORD   AT    DAVIS,    CALIFORNIA 

During  the  nine  seasons,  1911  to  1919,  that  Mariout  has  been  grown 
under  field  conditions  at  the  University  Farm  it  has  withstood  the 
closest  scrutiny  and  the  severest  tests  in  a  manner  which  can  leave 
no  doubt  as  to  its  superiority  over  common  or  Coast  barley  at  this 
place.  Each  season,  several  plantings  have  been  made,  so  that  the 
figures  given  in  table  5  represent  in  most  cases  average  yields  from 
replicated  plots.  The  tests  have  been  conducted  on  a  deep,  rich, 
"Yolc*  fine  sandy  loam';  soil,  and  deep-plowing,  summer-fallowing, 
fall-drilling,  and  other  improved  culture  practices,  discussed  under 
1 '  Tillage  Methods, ' '  have  been  employed.  Consequently,  the  reported 
yields  are  somewhat  higher  than  those  generally  obtained  in  the  com- 
munity. The  yields  are  reported  in  both  bushels  and  sacks  per  acre. 
The  sack  is  approximately  equivalent  to  two  bushels. 


IZ6  6 


IZOO 


110  0 


94  0 


1062 


101 1 


IOZ'0 


104-0 


942 


901 


79-0 


38  0 


74  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Bu.  Per  Acre 

Mariout    Calif.  No.  2241 : 

Coast  (Com)  «      «  ££43  ' 

Mariout    Calif.  No.  ££41  J 
CoastCCoTV.)  «      «  £243  * 

Mariout    Calif.  No. ££4/  ^\ 
Coast  (Com.)  «      «  £34J  * 

Mariout   Calif.  No.  £24/  ^ 
Coast  (Com.)  «      «  ££43  ~ 

Mariout    Calif.  No.  ££41  <^| 
Coast  (Com)  «      «  £243  r 

Mariout    Calif.  No.  ££41  *| 
Coast  (Com)  «      «  >?£4J  ' 

Mariout    Calif.  No.  ££41  <ol 
Coast  (Com.)  "      <<  £243  ' 

Mariout    Calif.  No.  £24/  tol 
Coast  (Com.)  «      «  £243  " 

Mariout    Calif.  No.  ££41  ~. 

Coastgom.)  «    «  ^w  ~ ! 

Fig.  9. — Diagram  showing  the  relative  yields  of  Mariout  barley,  Calif,  no.  2241, 
and  Coast  (common)  barley,  Calif,  no.  2243,  from  1911  to  1919  inclusive  at  the 
University  Farm,  Davis,  Calif. 

Table  5. — Yield  of  Mariout  and  Coast  (Common)  Barley  in  Bushels  and 
Sacks  per  Acre  at  the  University  Farm,  Davis,  Calif. 

Mariout  Common  (Coast) 

(Calif.  No.  2241)  (Calif.  No.  2243) 

Year  Bushels        Sacks        Bushels        Sacks 

1911 126.6  (63.3)  120.0  (60.0) 

1912 94.2  (47.1)            90.1  (45.05) 

1913 106.2  (53.1)  101.1  (50.05) 

1914 50.4  (25.2)           56.4  (28.2) 

1915 54.6  (27.3)           56.6  (28.3) 

1916 68.0  (34.0)           66.0  (33.0) 

1917 103.0  (51.5)  104.0  (52.0) 

1918 110.0  (55.0)           94.0  (47.0) 

1919 *79.0  (39.5)  38.0  (19.0) 

Average 88.0  (44.0)  80.68(40.34) 

*  Average  of  duplicate  4.5  acre  plots. 


68  0 


660 


546 


56-6 


504 


564 


MARIOUT  BARLEY  75 

These  figures,  instructive  as  they  stand,  are  of  still  greater  sig- 
nificance when  interpreted  in  connection  with  seasonal  variations, 
since  they  then  emphasis  the  fact  that  Mariout  is  somewhat  more 
productive  under  average  conditions,  and  decisively  more  productive 
under  dry  conditions,  than  common  barley  at  the  University  Farm. 
Apart  from  the  fact  that  Mariout  has  averaged  7.32  bushels  or  3.66 
sacks  more  per  acre  than  common  barley,  there  are  several  things  of 
minor  interest  brought  out.  In  the  years  1918  and  1919,  Mariout  has 
been  outstandingly  superior;  and  as  1918  was  a  drouth  year  with  a 
total  seasonal  rainfall  of  only  9.66  inches,  and  1919  was  a  year  of 
markedly  deficient  spring  rains,  the  peculiar  fitness  of  Mariout  to 
such  conditions  becomes  apparent. 

It  is,  moreover,  important  to  remember  that  in  all  of  these  tests, 
early  fall  planting  (November  and  December)  was  practiced,  and 
consequently  conditions  were  comparatively  more  favorable  to  the 
common  barley  than  to  Mariout.  In  tests  comparing  the  two  varieties 
with  spring  planting  (February  and  March),  the  yield  differential  has 
been  much  more  decisively  in  favor  of  Mariout.  A  case  in  point  is 
taken  from  the  1912  records.  In  that  year  Mariout,  planted  late 
(February  2),  yielded  95.15  bushels  (47.57  sacks)  per  acre  and  com- 
mon barley  planted  at  the  same  time  yielded  41.5  bushels  (20.75  sacks 
per  acre,  giving  a  differential  of  53.65  bushels  (26.82  sacks)  per  acre 
in  favor  of  Mariout.  In  the  earlier  planting  the  same  year,  quoted 
in  table  5,  the  differential  was  only  4.1  bushels  (2.05  sacks)  in  favor 
af  Mariout.  It  is  also  interesting  to  note  that  the  yield  of  Mariout 
was  actually  higher  in  the  late  than  in  the  earlier  plantings,  while  the 
yield  of  common  barley  was  diminished  by  one-half  as  a  consequence 
of  late  planting. 

A  further  interesting  and  significant  observation  is  that  in  the 
two  seasons,  1914  and  1915,  common  barley  slightly  exceeded  Mariout 
in  yield ;  also,  that  in  these  two  years  both  varieties  fell  considerably 
below  the  general  average  in  yield.  The  contributing  cause  in  these 
cases  was  the  excessively  cold  wet  winter  seasons;  the  total  seasonal 
rainfall  in  1914  was  28.7  inches  and  in  1915,  20.05  inches,  and  while 
both  varieties  are  affected  injuriously  under  such  circumstances,  com- 
mon barley  is  slightly  better  able  to  cope  with  them  than  is  Mariout. 
Tennessee  Winter  barley  (fig.  3),  on  the  other  hand,  withstood  the 
cold,  wet  soil  conditions  better  than  either  the  common  or  Mariout 
and  yielded  higher  than  either,  with  67.6  bushels  (33.8  sacks)  in 
1914  and  63.9  bushels  (31.9  sacks)  in  1915. 


76  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Summing  up  fifteen  years  of  experiments  with  these  two  varieties 
in  California,  Mariout  has  proved  to  be  slightly  more  productive  than 
common  barley  under  average  conditions,  and  decidedly  more  pro- 
ductive both  in  dry  years  and  when  spring-sown. 

YIELD    RECORDS    IN    OTHER    PARTS    OF    CALIFORNIA 

Mariout  has  been  grown  at  the  various  California  sub-stations 
both  to  the  north  and  south  of  Davis.  At  the  Imperial  Valley  sub- 
station, under  arid  conditions,  it  has  made  a  favorable  impression  and 
has  given  the  appearance  of  producing  more  heavily  than  the  common 
variety.  At  the  Kearney  Park  sub-station,  in  Fresno  County,  repre- 
sentative of  the  south  San  Joaquin  Valley,  it  has  also  been  favorably 
reported  upon,  and  appears  to  be  more  productive  than  the  common 
barley  there. 

It  has  been  grown  for  four  years  at  the  United  States  Plant  Intro- 
duction Garden  at  Chico,  representative  of  the  north  Sacramento 
Valley,  and  while  its  performance  record  in  this  more  northern 
climate  has  not  been  so  outstandingly  superior  to  that  of  the  common 
barley  as  in  other  drier  parts  of  the  state,  it  has  averaged  4.6  bushels 
(2.3  sacks)  per  acre  above  it,  and  in  the  dry  spring  of  1919  exceeded 
it  by  21.6  bushels  (10.8  sacks)  per  acre. 

We  are  indebted  to  Mr.  V.  H.  Florell,  of  the  Plant  Introduction 
Garden,  for  the  data  in  table  6. 

Table  6. — Yields  of  Mariout  and  Common  (Coast)  Barley,  in  Bushels  and 
Sacks  per  Acre,  at  the  Plant  Introduction  Garden,  Chico,  Calif. 

Mariout  Coast  (Common) 

Year  Bushels         Sacks         Bushels         Sacks 

1916 66.6  (33.3)  64.8  (32.4) 

1917 50.6  (25.3)  54.1  (27.05) 

1918 61.8  (30.9)  63.4  (31.7) 

1919 58.6  (29.3)  37.0  (18.5) 

Average 59.4  (29.7)  54.8  (27.4) 

In  the  Livermore  Valley,  Mr.  T.  E.  Rice  has  grown  Mariout  experi- 
mentally, and  reports  that  in  poor  years  it  has  been  more  productive 
than  the  common  variety. 

YIELD  RECORD  AT  HIGHMORE,  SOUTH  DAKOTA 

Mariout  has  also  been  grown  in  several  other  western  experiment 
stations  in  competition  with  established  varieties,  and  while  it  has  not 
in  all  cases  shown  to  such  an  advantage  as  in  California,  it  has  invari- 
ably proved  its  special  aptitude  to  droughty  localities  and  short,  hot 
seasons. 


MARIOUT   BARLEY  77 

At  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  substation  at 
Highmore,  in  east  central  South  Dakota,  under  semi-arid  climatic 
conditions,  with  an  average  seasonal  rainfall  of  12.24  inches,  and 
frequently  recurring  hot  south  winds  during  the  growing  season,  it 
has  made  the  following  record  in  competition  with  Coast  (common) 
barley  and  " Odessa,"  which  is  regarded  as  the  best  variety  for  that 
locality.  The  data  in  table  7  is  reported  by  Mr.  E.  S.  McFadden  of 
the  Highmore  substation. 

Table  7. — Yields  of  Mariout,  Coast  (Common),  and  Odessa  Barley,  in  Bushels 
and  Sacks  per  Acre,  at  the  Highmore  Sub-station,  S.D. 

Mariout  Coast  (Coramn)  Odessa 

Year  Bushels         Sacks         Bushels         Sacks         Bushels         Sacks 

1910 15.6   (7.8)  8.3   (4.15)  7.5   (3.75) 

1911* 

1912 5.5   (2.75)  3.9   (1.95)  2.1   (1.05) 

1913 4.8   (2.4)  7.3   (3.65)  6.9   (3.45) 

1914 36.4  (18.2)  44.8  (22.4)  47.9  (23.95) 

1915 49.9  (24.95)  79.0  (39.5)  79.0  (39.5) 

Average 22.44  (11.22)  28.6  (14.3)  28.68  (14.34) 

*A11  crops  destroyed  by  hail. 

In  seasons  of  good  rainfall  all  varieties  have  yielded  moderately  well, 
but  the  significant  feature  of  these  tests  has  been  the  .greater  produc- 
tiveness of  Mariout  in  the  drouth  years.  In  1910  the  total  seasonal 
rainfall  (April  1  to  August  31)  was  only  7.59  inches,  and  as  a  conse- 
quence, Mariout  practically  doubled  the  other  two  varieties  in  yield. 
Again  in  1912  the  total  seasonal  rainfall  was  only  9.39  inches,  and 
as  in  the  1910  test,  Mariout  again  demonstrated  its  superiority. 

YIELD    RECORD    AT    MOCCASIN,    MONTANA 

Mariout  has  been  grown  for  nine  years  at  the  United  States  De- 
partment of  Agriculture  Field  Station  at  Moccasin,  Montana.  The 
average  seasonal  rainfall  there  (April  1  to  July  1)  has  been  9.41 
inches,  and  the  drouth  years  occurring  during  the  period  of  the 
experiment  have  given  an  excellent  opportunity  to  compare  Mariout 
with  the  common  variety  in  dry  seasons,  as  well  as  in  seasons  of  normal 
rainfall.  We  are  indebted  to  Mr.  W.  P.  Baird,  of  the  Judith  Basin 
Station,  for  the  data  in  table  8. 

The  fact  that  Mariout  has  yielded  on  the  average  for  the  nine-year 
period,  3.27  bushels  (1.63  sacks)  per  acre  above  common  barley  is  of 
small  consequence  compared  with  the  finding  that  it  has  regularly 
exceeded  common  barley  in  the  dry  seasons.  The  years  1910  and  1911 
were  drouth  years,  with  total  seasonal  rainfalls  of  6.5  and  7.69  inches, 


78  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

respectively,  and  in  both  tests  Mariout  outyielded  common  (Coast) 
barley.  In  the  years  of  normal  rainfall  Mariout  has  occasionally  been 
exceeded  in  yield  by  common  barley. 

Table  8. — Yields  of  Mariout  and  Coast  (Common)  Barley  in  Bushels  and 
Sacks  per  Acre  at  the  Judith  Basin  Field  Station,  Moccasin,  Montana 

Mariout  Coast  (Common) 

Year  Bushels        Sacks        Bushels        Sacks 

1910 16.2   (8.1)  15.0   (7.5) 

1911 47.0  (23.5)  43.7  (21.85) 

1912* 

1913 47.9  (23.95)  55.0  (27.5) 

1914 51.3  (25.65)  43.1  (21.55) 

1915 72.0  (36.0)  83.1  (41.55) 

1916 32.8  (16.4)  32.0  (16.0) 

1917 15.2   (7.6)  14.6   (7.3) 

1918 35.1  (17.55)  39.0  (19.5) 

Average 39.44  (19.72)  36.17  (18.08) 

*Crops  destroyed  by  hail. 

YIELD    RECORD    AT    MORO,    OREGON 

Mariout  has  been  grown  at  the  United  States  Department  of 
Agriculture  eastern  Oregon  dry-farm  field  station  for  eight  years 
with  the  extremely  low  average  total  annual  precipitation  of  11.6 
inches,  and  in  competition  with  twenty-eight  other  barley  varieties  has 
maintained  the  highest  average  yield  for  the  period.  We  are  indebted 
to  Mr.  D.  B.  Stephens  of  Moro,  Oregon,  for  the  following  figures. 

Table  9. — Yields  of  Mariout  and  Coast   (Common)   Barley  in  Bushels  and 
Sacks  per  Acre,  at  the  U.S.D.A.  Eastern  Oregon  Dry-Farm 

Station,  at  Moro 

Mariout  Coast  (Common) 

Year  Bushels        Sacks  Bushels  Sacks 

1911 6.3         (3.15)  2.9         (1.45) 

1912 28.0  (14.0)  23.3  (11.65) 

1913 40.6  (20.3)  38.3  (19.15) 

1914 42.1  (21.05)     •      32.5  (16.25) 

1915 54.5  (27.25)  51.2  (25.6) 

1916 69.3  (34.65)  72.5  (36.25) 

1917 45.4  (22.7)  36.5  (18.25) 

1918 29.0  (14.5)  20.4  (10.2) 

Average 46.9  (23.45)  37.2  (18.6) 

Mariout  has  been  a  pronounced  success  in  the  dry  climate  of  Moro, 
Oregon,  where  it  has  averaged  9.71  bushels  (4.85  sacks)  per  acre 
above  the  common  (Coast)  variety,  and  has  exceeded  it  in  yield  seven 
out  of  the  eight  years  that  it  has  been  grown  there. 


MARIOUT   BARLEY  79 

YIELD    RECORD    AT   ABERDEEN,    IDAHO 

Mariout  and  common  (Coast)  barley,  together  with  numerous 
others,  were  grown  at  the  Idaho  Agricultural  Experiment  Station  for 
three  years,  both  with  and  without  irrigation,  and  the  general  con- 
clusion was  reached  that  the  varieties  Mariout  and  Smyrna  were  the 
best  tested  for  dry  land,  and  Trebi  the  best  for  irrigated  land.  We 
are  intebted  to  Mr.  L.  C.  Aicher,  of  the  Aberdeen  substation,  for  the 
figures  in  table  10. 

Table  10. — Yields  of  Mariout  and  Coast  (Common)  Barley  on  Dry  Land,  in 
Bushels  and  Sacks  per  Acre,  at  the  Idaho  Agricultural 
Experiment  Station,  Aberdeen,  Idaho. 

Mariout  Common  (Coast) 

Year  Bushels        Sacks         Bushels         Sacks 

1913 43.8  (21.9)  28.3  (14.15) 

1914 35.5  (17.75)  38.1  (19.05) 

1915 13.3   (6.65)  10.1  (5.05) 

Average 30.86  (15.43)  25.5  (12.75) 

YIELD    RECORD    AT    BURNS,    OREGON 

Mariout  and  common  (Coast)  barley  have  also  been  grown  at  the 
United  States  Department  of  Agriculture  Harney  County  Branch 
Station  at  Burns  in  central  Oregon  for  five  years,  where  the  average 
annual  rainfall  is  11  inches,  and  where  summer  frosts  during  the 
growing  season  are  of  frequent  occurrence.  We  are  indebted  to 
Mr.  O.  Shattuck,  superintendent  of  the  station,  for  the  following 
figures. 

Table  11. — Yields  of  Mariout  and  Coast  (Common)  Barley,  in  Bushels  and 
Sacks  per  Acre,  at  the  U.S.D.A.  Harney  County  Sub-station, 

Burns,  Oregon. 

Mariout  Common  (Coast) 

Year  Bushels         Sacks         Bushels         Sacks 

1913 19.0   (9.5)  31.5  (15.75) 

1914 19.6   (9.8)  15.6  (7.8) 

1915 14.3   (7.15)  13.4  (6.7) 

1916 35.2  (17.6)  45.4  (22.7) 

1917 9.2   (4.6)  13.8  (6.9) 

Average 19.46     (9.73)  "23.94  (11.97) 

In  these  tests  at  Burns,  Oregon,  Mariout  has  been  inferior  to 
common  barley  in  point  of  yield.  The  average  daily  mean  tempera- 
ture at  this  station  is  from  2  to  10  degrees  lower  than  that  of  the  other 
grain  regions  of  the  northwest,  and  summer  frosts  occur  frequently 
during  the  growing  season  in  June,  July,  and  August.  Knowing  the 
sensitiveness  of  Mariout  to  such  conditions  in  California,  the  yield 


80 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


data  confirms  our  opinion,  that  Mariout  is  less  desirable  than  the 
common  variety  in  the  cool  mountainous  districts. 

Beviewing  the  yield  data  from  seven  western  experiment  stations, 
it  is  found  that  Mariout  has  exceeded  common  (Coast)  barley  in 
point  of  yield  at  five  of  them,  and  has  outyielded  common  barley  most 
decisively  in  dry  seasons  and  in  hot  arid  climates. 


MALTING  PROPERTIES 

In  the  past,  malsters  have  required  the  best  quality  barley  grown, 
and  have  paid  the  highest  prices  for  it.  Consequently  barley  grades 
and  prices  have  been  chiefly  determined  by  suitability  to  malting 
purposes.  California  barley,  known  to  the  trade  as  Bay  Brewing, 
but  in  reality  only  a  grade  of  the  "Coast"  or  "common"  variety, 
has  generally  been  regarded  as  superior  to  the  eastern  varieties  of  the 
same  type  for  malting  purposes,  and  in  view  of  the  growing  import- 
ance of  Mariout  in  California,  apprehension  has  been  felt  in  some 
quarters  that  it  might  not  equal  the  common  variety  for  malting. 
Recent  tests,  however,  have  shown  that  no  distinction  can  be  drawn 
between  them  in  this  respect.  Through  the  courtesy  of  the  E.  Clemens 
Horst  Company  of  San  Francisco  these  two  varieties  have  been  sub- 
mitted to  the  leading  malsters  throughout  the  United  States,  and 
definite  malting  values  have  been  assigned  them  through  these  agencies. 

The  Wahl-Henius  Institute  of  Fermentology,  Chicago,  Illinois, 
reports  as  follows: 


Variety:  Mariout  Barley. 

Crop:  1916. 

Grown  by:  University  of  California, 
Agri.  Exp.  Farm,  Davis. 

Variety  and  Admixture:  Six-rowed 
Barley . 

Color  and  brightness:  Pale  straw  to 
yellow.  Slightly  stained.  Fair- 
ly bright. 

Odor:  Good. 

Thickness  of  husk:  Average. 

General  Impression:  Fairly  regular  in 
size  and  form.  Poorly  threshed. 
Slightly  immature. 


Offal 


By  screen: 
By  water: 
By  blower: 
By  cockle- 
machine 


1.1  % 
0.07% 
0.05% 

3.6  % 


4.8% 


Variety:  (Coast)  Barley. 

Crop:  1916. 

Grown  by:  University  of  California, 
Agri.  Exp.  Farm,  Davis. 

Variety  and  Admixture:  Six-rowed 
Barley. 

Color  and  brightness:  Pale  straw  to 
yellow  mixed.  Slightly  stain- 
ed.    Fairly  bright. 

Odor:  Good. 

Thickness  of  husk:  Slightly  below  ave. 

General  Impression:  Fairly  uniform  in 
size   and   form.      Insufficiently 
threshed.    Slightly  immature. 
By  screen:       1.7  % 
By  water         0.2  % 
By  blower:      0.05% 


Offal 


By  cockle- 
machine 


2.7 


4-7% 


Sprouters 0.0% 

Remaining  foreign  substances..     0.0% 


Sprouters 0.0% 

Remaining  foreign  substances. .     0.0% 


MARIOUT  BARLEY 


81 


Merchants'  or  Graders'  Test,  Ave. — 

1000  berryweight 41.4  grams 

Uniformity  as  to  size 88.7% 

Germinating  capacity 98 . 2  % 

Moisture 9.5% 

Maltsters'  Tests,  Ave  — 

Albumen  (Nx6.25) 12.2% 

Uniformity  as  to  variety :  very  good 
(by  botanical  examination). 

Bottle  Beer  Brewers'  Tests,  Ave. — 
The    available    barley    for 
malting  in  this  sample 
is  (100-%  Offal) 95.2% 


Merchants'  or  Graders'  Test,  Ave. — 

1000  berryweight 42.2  grams 

Uniformity  as  to  size 89.8% 

Germinating  capacity... 98. 8% 
Moisture 9.6% 

Maltster's  Tests,  Ave  — 

Albumen  (Nx6.25) 12.3% 

Uniformity  as  to  variety :  very  good 
(by  botanical  examination). 

Bottle  Beer  Brewers'  Tests,  Ave. — 
The    available    barley    for 
malting  in  this  sample 
is  (100-%  Offal) 95.3% 

Signed: 

Wahl-Henius  Institute  . 


They  conclude  that  both  are  equally  capable  of  making  good  malting 
grades.  The  Schlitz  Brewing  Company,  of  Milwaukee,  reports  as 
follows : 


Physical  Examination 


Mariout  Common  (Coast) 

Appearance not  very  uniform  not  very  uniform 

Color pale  yellow  light  yellow 

Gloss dull  dull 

Consistency  of  hull thick  and  coarse  thick  and  coarse 

Purity very  good  very  good 

Grading:  7.64  in 43.8  %  45  % 

5  1-12 -64  in 53.0  %  54  % 

3-63  in 3.2  %  1  % 

100.0  %  100  % 

Germination good  good 

Taste ■••■■•• normal  normal 

Odor normal  normal 

Consistency  of  mealy  body flinty  flinty 

Shape  of  kernels full-bodied  full-bodied 

Weight  of  1000  kernels  (dry  substance) 50.3  grams  53.0  grams 

Swimmers '. 2  %  1  % 

Germination   test:   Filter   paper   method   500 
kernels: 

Growth  after  48  hours 93.8  %  67.8  % 

Growth  after  72  hours 97.0  %  94.7  % 

Growth  after  96  hours 97.6  %  98.5  % 

Germination  energy very  good  very  good 

Germination  capacity very  good  very  good 


82  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Chemical  Examination 

Mariout  Common  (Coast) 

Moisture 9.78  %  9.60  % 

Protein 11.38  %  11.99  % 

Protein  (dry  sub.) 12.61  %  13.26  % 

Signed : 

Jos.  Schlitz  Brewing  Co. 

The  company  concludes  that  both  varieties  are  very  similar  in  quality. 

TILLAGE    METHODS 

Experiments  at  the  University  Farm  have  clearly  demonstrated 
several  fundamentally  important  things  relating  to  the  most  economic 
methods  of  grain  production,  and  while  of  necessity  much  of  the  inves- 
tigational work  with  crops  conducted  at  the  Farm  is  of  a  special 
character,  and  chiefly  valuable  in  its  application  where  similar  con- 
ditions exist,  we  may  nevertheless  derive  from  it  many  points  which 
have  a  general  bearing  and  well  illustrate  the  principle  which  we 
wish  to  inculcate. 

Annual  or  Biennial  Cropping. — The  question  of  whether  it  is 
more  profitable  to  crop  land  to  grain  continuously  every  year,  or  to 
summer  fallow  it  during  alternate  years  is  frequently  an  important 
and  difficult  one  to  decide,  especially  in  districts  in  the  borderland 
between  the  regions  of  ample  and  deficient  precipitation.  A  con- 
clusion which  has  been  reached  in  studying  this  question  at  the  Uni- 
versity Farm  over  a  period  of  several  years,  during  which  both  systems 
have  been  practiced,  and  the  costs  of  production  and  net  profits  per 
acre  correlated  with  fluctuating  seasonal  rainfall,  is,  that  biennal 
cropping  should  be  practiced  in  those  districts  where  the  average 
seasonal  rainfall  is  less  than  16  inches,  and  annual  cropping  should 
be  practiced  where  the  seasonal  rainfal  is  above  18  inches.  Where  the 
average  seasonal  rainfall  is  from  16  to  18  inches  there  is  little  choice 
from  a  money  viewpoint,  but  the  introduction  of  a  fallow  every  third 
or  fourth  year  would  probably  have  a  salutary  effect  upon  the  land. 
Much  of  the  success  of  either  system,  of  course,  depends  chiefly  upon 
the  manner  and  time  of  working  the  land,  and  in  the  following  para- 
graphs the  important  principles  of  land  preparation  and  its  relations 
to  dry-land  grain  farming  in  California  are  discussed. 

Disking  the  Stubble. — Independent  of  whether  annual  or  biennial 
cropping  is  practiced,  it  is  advisable  to  disk  the  stubble  soon  after 
harvest,  using  preferably  a  double  cut-away  disk,  weighted  and  set 
for  deep  penetration.  Such  an  implement  may  well  be  attached 
directly  behind  the  combined   harvester,   and   the  first  step  in  the 


MARIOUT  BARLEY  83 

preparation  of  the  land  for  the  succeeding  crop  accomplished  simul- 
taneously with  the  harvesting  of  the  preceding  crop.  Such  treatment 
not  only  prepares  the  ground  for  easier  and  smoother  plowing,  but  it 
checks  evaporation  and  collects  residual  moisture  near  the  surface, 
so  that  the  land  many  be  plowed  at  an  earlier  date.  Moreover,  it 
encourages  the  earlier  growth  of  weed  seeds,  and  is  especially  recom- 
mended for  land  producing  grain  annually.  The  actual  saving  of 
moisture  by  this  treatment  often  amounts  to  an  equivalent  of  2y2 
inches  of  rain  to  a  depth  of  six  feet. 

Fall  Plowing. — Land  devoted  to  the  production  of  grain  should 
be  plowed  deeply,  eight  to  ten  inches,  at  the  earliest  date  in  the  fall 
when  it  is  in  good  working  condition.  Plowing  dry  prior  to  the  rainy 
season  is  of  doubtful  advantage  (fig.  17),  excepting  on  the  lighter 
soil  types,  and  in  conjunction  with  annual  cropping.  An  extended 
series  of  experiments  at  the  University  Farm,  comparing  deep  (eight- 
inch)  fall  plowing  with  shallow  (four-inch)  fall  plowing,  has  shown 
that  the  yield  of  barley  may,  on  an  average,  be  increased  7  bushels 
(Sy2  sacks)  per  acre,  by  the  deeper  plowing,  provided  it  is  done  early 
in  the  fall.  The  winter  rainfall  in  California  is  intermittent  and  at 
times  torrential,  so  that  deep  soil  preparation  is  necessary  to  catch  it 
and  prevent  losses  through  surface  drainage.  Moreover,  the  prin- 
cipal root  feeding  area  of  cereal  crops  is  largely  limited  to  the  depth 
of  soil  turned  by  the  plow;  and  the  increased  feeding  area  provided 
by  deeper  plowing  is  an  important  aid  in  increasing  yields,  especially 
where  the  rainfall  is  light,  and  the  surface  soil  drys  rapidly  in  the 
spring,  leaving  the  plants  on  shallow-prepared  land  stranded  in  the 
early  stages  of  development,  and  without  adequate  connection  with 
the  deeper  supplies  of  moisture.     But  a  caution  is  necessary  here. 

— We  must  not  regard  it  as  certain  in  every  case,  or  indeed  in  most 
cases,  that  yields  may  be  increased  7  bushels  (3%  sacks)  per  acre  by 

^merely  deeper  plowing.  Under  certain  circumstances  shallow  plow- 
ing yields  better  results  than  deep  plowing,  and  the  underlying  reason 
for  this  is  again  a  question  of  moisture  conservation.  Spring-plowed 
land,  being  drier,  does  not  settle  readily,  and  generally  dries  quickly 
to  the  depth  plowed ;  consequently,  shallow  spring-plowed  land  loses 
less  moisture  than  deep  spring-plowed  land,  and  in  dry  years  naturally 
yields  more.  -Moreover,  deep  spring  plowing  is  undesirable  from  the 
standpoint  of  seed-bed  preparation.  Freshly  plowed  land  is  never  a 
suitable  medium  for  the  seeding  of  small  grains;  to  secure  the  best 
results  a  period  of  several  weeks,  with  considerable  rain,  should  inter- 
vene between  deep  plowing  and  planting,  in  order  to  obtain  a  firm 


84  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 

texture  and  to  obliterate  air  spaces  in  the  lower  seed-bed  zone.  Shal- 
low spring  plowing,  on  the  other  hand,  merely  loosens  the  surface, 
leaving  a  firm  moist  stratum  directly  beneath,  and  provides  better 
conditions  for  plant  growth  in  the  late  winter  or  early  spring. 

For  these  reason  shallow  spring  plowing  has  given  higher  grain 
yields  at  the  University  Farm  than  deep  spring  plowing.  Many 
grain  farmers  in  the  Sacramento  Valley  prepare  land  for  planting  by 
one  plowing  only,  viz.,  late  in  the  season  (January  to  February),  in 
order  to  destroy  weeds  and  fit  the  land  for  planting  at  a  single  oper- 
ation. This  single  late  plowing  is  generally  a  shallow  one,  since  it 
has  been  learned  from  experience  that  deep  spring  preparation  is 
detrimental  to  the  crop. 

The  system  of  producing  grain  by  a  single  plowing,  however,  is 
at  best  a  negligent  and  unprofitable  one,  for  the  reason  that  no  error 
could  be  more  certainly  fatal  to  the  success  of  the  crop  than  the  com- 
bination of  late  seeding  and  shallow  seed-bed  preparation  which  it 
entails.  The  most  desirable  preparation,  where  annual  cropping  is 
practiced,  consists  of  a  deep  (ten-inch)  plowing  early  in  November, 
followed  by  a  shallow  plowing,  disking  and  harrowing  a  few  weeks 
hence.  Such  double  working  will  combine  the  advantages  of  deep 
plowing  and  deep  rooting,  with  a  firm,  clean,  well  consolidated  seed 
bed. 

How  to  Summer-Fallow. — Judging  from  the  summer-fallow 
methods  in  vogue  over  a  large  part  of  the  dry-farmed  grain  districts 
of  California,  it  is  evident  that  there  is  a  general  misapprehension  of 
the  principles  of  moisture  conservation.  The  steps  in  the  preparation 
of  the  fallow  should  be  as  follows :  first  commence  with  the  disking 
of  the  stubble  immediately  after  harvest ;  second,  deep  plowing  of  the 
land  during  November  or  December;  and  third,  allow  the  land  to  lie 
rough  in  the  furrow  as  turned  by  the  plow,  throughout  the  rainy 
season,  for  in  this  condition  it  will  absorb  more  rain  and  be  benefited 
by  its  exposure  to  the  weather.  By  spring  the  plowed  ground  will 
have  settled  well  and  the  fallow  may  be  prepared  by  a  shallow  plowing 
to  destroy  weeds  or,  if  the  land  is  clean,  a  cultivation  or  harrowing 
may  answer  equally  well.  The  aim  should  be  to  establish  the  mulch 
before  the  surface  has  become  hard  and  crusted,  and  to  do  it  at  such 
times  and  in  such  manner  that  a  coarsely  granular  structure  may  be 
given  (fig.  15).  If  rain  occurs  after  its  establishment,  send  in  the 
harrows  again  and  break  the  crust  at  the  right  moment.  It  is  prefer- 
able to  do  this  several  times,  rather  than  to  defer  it  until  the  ground 
is  too  dry  and  hard  to  be  worked  effectively. 


MARIOUT  BARLEY 


85 


Popular  opinion  has  favored  leaving  the  land  in  the  stubble 
throughout  the  winter,  and  preparing  the  fallow  by  dry  plowing  from 
May  to  July  (fig.  17),  but  such  fallowing  is  very  wasteful  of  moisture, 
and  has  nothing  to  recommend  it,  excepting  that  it  offers  the  course 
of  least  resistance.  Still  others  have  adhered  to  the  practice  of  simply 
resting  the  land  for  a  year,  by  pasturing  the  stubble  throughout  the 
winter  and  summer  seasons  following  harvest.  This  system  offers  the 
advantage  of  manuring  the  land,  and  is  justifiable  in  localities  of 


w^n 


*u. 


*»>• 


Fig.  10. — A  deep  working  chisel  cultivator  stirring  the  ground  to  a  depth  of 
seven  inches.  Treatment  of  this  character  improves  a  fallow  which  has  developed 
a  ' '  sole ' '  by  too  frequent  weed  cutting ;  and  is  efficient  in  disintegrating  plow 
soles  at  a  season  of  the  year  when  deep  plowing  would  be  inadvisable  from  the 
standpoint  of  moisture  conservation. 

abundant  rainfall,  but  is  inconsistent  with  dry-farming  principles, 
and  in  the  drier  districts  is  even  less  defensible  than  the  summer- 
plowing  system  outlined  above. 

The  ideal  summer  fallow  is  prepared  as  outlined  by  a  combination 
of  deep  fall  plowing  and  shallow  spring  working.  The  soil  should  go 
into  the  dry  summer  months  protected  by  a  granular  mulch  three  or 
four  inches  in  depth.  Choose  the  implement  for  the  spring  working 
which  will  granulate  the  surface  to  a  texture  comparable  in  size  with 
English  walnuts   (fig.  15).     Use  the  disk  with  caution,  for  it  may 


86 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


pulverize  the  soil  too  finely,  causing  "running  together,'1   crusting, 
and  baking,  subsequent  to  planting. 

Care  of  the  Fallow. — The  proper  establishment  of  the  summer 
fallow  is  a  more  exacting  process  than  its  subsequent  treatment.  This 
applies  especially  to  the  California  grain  districts  where  summer 
rains  do  not  occur.  California  grain  lands,  however,  are  generally 
speaking,  uncommonly  weedy,  and  an  occasional  summer  working  of 
the  fallow  to  clean  it  is,  in  most  cases,  necessary  to  secure  the  best 
results.     A  weedy  fallow  is  objectionable  on  three  scores :   first,  it 


Fig.  11. — A  disk-prepared  summer  fallow  at  the  University  Farm.  The  texture 
of  the  soil  mulch  shown  here  is  regarded  as  ideal.  It  is  neither  coarse  and  refrac- 
tory, nor  is  it  so  finely  pulverized  that  there  is  danger  of  its  i '  running  together ' ' 
and  crusting  when  rained  subsequent  to  planting.  The  disk  harrow  is  less 
effective  for  weeding  the  fallow  than  the  sweep  type  weed  cutter  (fig.  12),  and  its 
continued  use  on  the  fallow  may  pulverize  the  soil  too  finely. 


does  not  conserve  moisture  effectively;  second,  it  necessitates  replow- 
ing  preparatory  to  planting,  and  third,  it  interferes  with  the  develop- 
ment of  the  crop.  The  most  effective  weeders  are  of  the  "spear-head 
sweep"  or  "duck-foot"  type  (fig.  16)  ;  they  are  much  more  efficient 
in  the  destruction  of  weeds  than  either  the  disk-harrow  (fig.  15)  or 
shovel  tooth  cultivator ;  but  a  caution  is  necessary  in  their  use :  on 
soils  of  medium  or  heavy  type,  such  implements  will  invariably  form 
a  hard,  sheared,  cultivator  sole  at  the  depth  of  penetration,  a  circum- 
stance to  be  avoided,  since  it  neutralizes  the  beneficial  effects  of  deep 
plowing.  But  this  undesirable  condition  is  easily  and  effectively 
remedied  by  the  occasional  use  of  a  deep  working  chisel  cultivator, 
or  killifer  (fig.  14).    Ordinarily  four  weedings,  supplemented  by  two 


MARIOUT   BARLEY 


87 


such  chiselings,  will  put  the  fallow  in  ideal  condition  for  early  plant- 
ing of  seed  in  the  fall. 

Prepared  in  this  way,  the  land  need  not  and  should  not  be  plowed 
preparatory  to  planting.  The  deep  plowing  of  twelve  months  previous, 
coupled  with  the  long  settling  period,  and  frequent  surface  working, 
will  have  given  the  seed  bed  the  depth  and  texture  necessary  to  a 


j* 


Fig.  12. — Weeding  the  summer  fallow  at  the  University  Farm.  The  implement 
shown  carries  nine  6-inch  ' '  duck-foot ' '  sweeps,  which  are  set  to  penetrate  four 
inches.  It  is  more  effective  than  the  disk  in  cleaning  the  fallow,  but  it  liable  to 
pack  the  soil  at  the  depth  of  penetration,  in  which  case  it  should  be  followed  by 
the  chisel  (fig.  10)  to  break  up  the  sole. 

vigorous  deep  and  extensive  root  development,  and  by  the  destruction 
of  weeds  will  have  made  further  plowing  unnecessary. 

How  to  Prepare  hand  for  Annual  Cropping. — Deep  plowing  is  an 
essential  adjunct  to  successful  annual  grain  cropping;  but  to  be  of 
immediate  benefit  it  must  be  accomplished  early  in  the  fall,  and  indeed 
may  be  an  actual  detriment  if  performed  late  in  the  winter.  Con- 
sequently we  have  no  sufficient  reason  to  dissent  from  those  who 
advocate  shallow  plowing,  so  long  as  they  insist  upon  plowing  late  in 
the  winter  or  early  in  the  spring.  In  order  therefore,  to  advance  the 
plowing  date  as  much  as  possible,  the  stubble  should  be  thoroughly 
disked  soon  after  harvest.  This  treatment  will  cause  moisture  to 
collect  near  the  surface,  and  often  in  sufficient  quantity  to  make 
smooth  plowing  possible  even  before  the  first  rains.     Dry  summer 


88  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

plowing,  before  the  soil  is  moist  enough  to  scour  and  pulverize,  is 
objectionable  excepting  on  the  lighter,  freer  working  soils.  Land  which 
has  been  turned  up  in  large  hard  lumps  often  remains  in  that  con- 
dition until  well  into  the  winter  or  early  spring,  and  even  though 
finely  pulverized  at  the  surface,  may  remain  rough  and  lumpy  at  the 
bottom  of  the  furrow  (fig.  17). 

Circumstances  often  prevent  the  strict  adherence  to  a  definite 
programme  of  field  work,  but  with  certain  exceptions,  the  ideal  fitting 
of  land  for  the  annual  production  of  barley  should  consist  of  a  stubble 
disking  in  June,  followed  by  ten-inch  plowing  in  November,  followed 
by  a  four-inch  plowing  a  few  weeks  later,  followed  by  disking,  har- 
rowing, and  seeding  as  soon  thereafter  as  possible.  But  if  only  one 
plowing  is  contemplated,  and  the  land  is  weedy,  we  may  safely  grant 
that  this  single  plowing  should  preferably  be  done  late  in  the  winter, 
because  of  the  weeds,  and  that  it  should  not  exceed  six  inches  in  depth, 
because  of  the  loss  of  moisture.  It  is  also  important  that  it  be  fol- 
lowed closely  by  a  weighted  disk  to  consolidate  it,  and  the  deeper  and 
later  it  is  plowed  the  more  thoroughly  the  disking  should  be  done. 
In  this  manner  the  disk  accomplishes,  though  less  effectively,  what 
the  winter  rains  accomplish  for  fall  plowing:  Underlying  all  this  is 
the  principle  that  the  soil  moisture  is  incapable  of  rising  to  the  surface 
unless  the  soil  is  finely  pulverized  and  firmly  settled,  and  conse- 
quently the  root  zone,  if  unconsolidated,  becomes  insulated  from  the 
lower  reservoir  of  soil  moisture,  and  is  subject  to  rapid  drying,  even 
though  the  sub-soil  remains  abundantly  supplied  with  moisture. 

The  statements  made  above  form  the  basis  for  a  rational  system 
of  land  preparation  for  grain  cropping  on  the  dry  lands  of  interior 
California,  and  if  followed  with  discretion,  should  result  in  an  early, 
moist  and  perfectly  prepared  seed  bed,  deeply  worked,  well  settled, 
finely  pulverized  below,  and  coarsely  granular  at  the  surface. 
^r  At  What  Season  to  Plant  Barley. — The  barley  planting  season  of 
California  extends  over  a  nine-months  period,  from  September  1  to 
June  1;  but  the  principal  planting  season  is  from  December  1  to 
February  1.  Four  types  of  land  in  California  are  suited  to  the 
spring  planting  of  barley:  first,  the  mountainous  districts  with  their 
severe  winter  climates ;  second,  the  winter  flood  areas  where  fall  seed- 
ing would  "drown  out";  third,  surface  irrigated  land,  and  fourth, 
sub-irrigated  lands  which  remain  well  stocked  with  moisture  through- 
out the  summer.  Taken  together  these  four  types  of  land  produce 
less  than  15  per  cent  of  the  California  barley  crop,  the  remainder  and 
larger  portion  being  grown  on  dry  land  is  wholly  dependent  upon 
the  winter  rains  for  its  moisture  supply.     On  land  of  the  latter  class 


MARIOUT  BARLEY  89 

the  barley  planting  season  extends  from  November  to  March,  but 
only  in  rare  seasons  of  more  than  normal  spring  rain,  do  plantings 
after  January  15  succeed  so  well  as  those  made  prior  to  December  15. 
As  a  rule,  all  circumstances  being  the  same,  the  longer  the  barley  plant 
is  in  the  ground,  the  more  food  it  is  able  to  procure  from  it,  and  the 
greater  the  return  it  is  capable  of  producing.  In  an  extended  series 
of  experiments  at  the  University  Farm,  it  has  been  definitely  ascer- 
tained that  November  and  December  planted  barley  outyields  January 
and  February  planted  barley  on  an  average  of  5  sacks  (10  bushels) 


'*yE 

Sp 

JtfHHlnflm 

^J*JJSmi             • 

Fig.  13. — An  example  of  a  poorly  prepared  summer  fallow.  The  land  has 
been  left  in  the  stubble  all  winter,  and  "plowed  dry"  the  following-  June.  It  is 
a  heavy  soil  and  has  turned  up  in  large  lumps  which  no  amount  of  working  will 
reduce.  Land  prepared  in  this  manner  must  be  replowed  before  planting.  Such 
fallowing  is  wasteful  of  moisture  and  fatal  to  the  production  of  high  yields. 

per  acre,  and  that  November  planted  barley  outyields  March  planted 
barley  by  a  still  greater  margin.  In  the  drier  districts  to  the  south, 
the  differential  in  favor  of  fall  planting  as  compared  with  spring 
planting  is  still  greater. 

The  following  clipping,  taken  at  random  from  a  California  paper, 
speaks  eloquently  of  the  planting  practice  and  its  effect  upon  the  crop 
as  it  exists  in  California  today.  It  is  only  one  of  the  numerous  items 
of  a  similar  character  which  have  frequently  appeared  in  our  papers : 

Porterville,  April  21,  1915. — "Worth  literally  millions  of  dollars  to  grain 
growers  a  half -inch  of  rain  soaked  southern  Tulare  County  today.  The  storm  came 
in  the  nick  of  time  to  save  a  half -million  bag  crop  of  wheat.  It  practically 
assures  a  fine  grain  crop  over  the  entire  dry  farming  area  of  this  portion,  of  the 
valley.  • 


90  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

Unfortunately,  opportune  spring  rains  do  not  always  occur  ' '  in  the 
nick  of  time"  to  save  the  crop.  Seven  out  of  ten  seasons  in  California 
are  dry  spring  seasons.  Spring-planted  grain  is  of  course  dependent 
upon  spring  rains  to  carry  it  to  maturity,  while  fall-planted  grain 
makes  its  principal  growth  during  the  winter  and  is  independent  of 
additional  spring  rainfall  for  its  ripening  process ;  in  fact,  spring 
rain  may  be  an  actual  detriment  to  it.  The  only  valid  objection  to 
fall  planting  is,  that  occasionally  a  heavy  shower  in  April  or  May, 
coincident  with  the  filling  process,  may  occasion  losses  through  lodg- 
ing, but  such  losses  are  never  so  disastrous  as  those  suffered  by  spring- 
planted  grain  in  dry-spring  years. 

Notwithstanding  these  facts,  opinion  in  the  Sacramento  Valley 
generally  is  in  favor  of  spring  planting  for  barley,  and  so  long  as 
this  sentiment  prevails,  unsound  as  it  is,  the  wider  use  of  the  variety 
Mariout,  for  reasons  previously  discussed,  should  be  encouraged. 

The  crop  season  of  1918-1919  was  an  exceptional  one  in  that  a 
rainfall  of  3.98  inches  on  September  10  made  it  possible  to  fit  the 
ground  and  plant  barley  on  dry  land  during  September  and  October, 
several  weeks  in  advance  of  the  usual  earliest  possible  planting  date 
(fig.  18).  In  fact,  no  previous  season  at  the  University  Farm  has 
afforded  an  opportunity  to  determine  the  effect  of  such  extremely 
early  planting  upon  the  yield  of  barley,  and  while  the  experiment 
quoted  is  a  solitary  one,  the  results  are  strictly  comparable  and  conse- 
quently valuable.  The  land  was  fallowed  during  the  previous  sum- 
mer, and  was  prepared  for  planting  by  disking.  "Four  Thousand" 
barley,  a  pedigreed  strain  of  the  common  sort,  was  drilled  at  the  rate 
of  80  pounds  per  acre  in  each  instance. 

Table  12. — Yield  in  Bushels  and  Sacks  per   Acre,  of  "Four   Thousand" 
Barley  (Calif.  No.  2265)  Planted  at  Four  Different  Dates  at 
the  University  Farm,  Season  of  1918-19. 

Date  of  Yield 

Time  of  planting  planting  Bushels         Sacks 

Extremely  early Sept.  18th  60.0  (30.0) 

Early Nov.  6th  80.3  (40.15) 

Midseason Jan.  8th  81.5  (40.75) 

Late Mar.  22nd  31.11  (15.55) 

Of  course,  these  figures  must  only  be  taken  for  what  they  are 
worth ;  that  is,  as  approximative.  There  are  far  too  many  interfering 
conditions  to  allow  them  to  have  an  absolute  value.  In  a  suggestive 
way,  however,  the  experiment  is  of  unusual  interest,  as  it  shows  that 
in  this  season  at  least,  barley  might  be  planted  either  too  early  or 
too  late  to  secure  maximum  yields.     Hitherto  we  had  held,  that  the 


MARIOUT  BARLEY 


91 


earlier  the  planting,  the  better  the  yield,  but  we  must  now  modify 
this  point  of  view  and  say  that  in  certain  instances  at  least  too  early 
planting  may  be  as  detrimental  as  too  late  planting.  One  striking 
finding  is  the  extremely  low  yield  of  the  spring  planting. 

Further  interesting  relationships  are  presented  in  table  13. 


Fig.  14. — Date  of  planting  test  with  barley  at  the  University  Farm.  Block 
"A, "  planted  March  22,  yielded  31.11  bushels  (15.55  sacks)  per  acre;  block 
"B, "  planted  January  8,  yielded  81.5  bushels  (40.75  sacks)  per  acre;  block 
"C, "  planted  November  6,  yielded  80.3  bushels  (40.15  sacks)  per  acre,  and 
block  "D, "  planted  September  18,  yielded  60  bushels  (30  sacks)  per  acre.  Sep- 
tember planted  barley  ripened  in  236  days,  November  planted  in  200  days,  Janu- 
ary planted  in  148  days,  and  March  planted  in  90  days.  For  complete  data  see 
tables  12  and  13. 


Table  13. — Effect  of  Planting  Date  Upon  the  Development  of 

"Four  Thousand  Barley." 

'S.S  so        a  a         «a         -»£%        -c  J§         So  sm 

W"gS         0«^      ~  fl  c  g         bC  G^Q  ©  ^  A  oo  fl  W-B; 

.c^3         .a>o        •  i*  ••'3-^       'Java  .  ■+*  oo  •  Si  <u  l  m 

>03O         >a  (j        k»  OS  >o3:^        >  o3  Si  o3  £  >£?»  a>"0 

Dateplanted  <JaE  «U"-C3.  -<^  -<&&  £m&  Q             Pn  ^-d'C  Pn,2 

Sept.  18,  1918 36          8  1.5         34        37  5-12  3-15  236  0 

Nov.    6,  1918 52           9  2.25       43         45  5-25  4-10  200  30 

Jan.     8,  1919 47           8  2.25       54        40  6-5  4-23  148  0 

Mar.  22,  1919 26           5  1.75  36        36  6-20  5-20  90  0 

Summing  up  these  figures,  it  appears  that  November  and  January- 
planted  barley  produced  the  longest  straw  growth,  the  longest  and 
best  filled  heads,  the  heaviest  grain,  and  the  highest  yields.  Contrary 
to  popular  opinion  it  is  also  apparent  that  conditions  favorable  to 
the  production  of  tall  straw  are  equally  favorable  to  the  production 
of  the  most  and  heaviest  barley.  The  heaviest  tillering  resulted  from 
November  planting,  the  lightest  from  March  planting.     The  number 


92  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 

of  days  required  for  the  crop  to  ripen  is  diminished  as  the  planting 
date  is  delayed,  but  late  planted  barley  ripens  fully  five  weeks  later 
than  early  planted  barley.  The  ranker  growth  of  the  November- 
planted  barley  occasioned  considerably  more  lodging  than  either  the 
earlier  or  later  plantings,  but  the  September  planting  was  injured 
more  severely  by  rust  than  the  later  plantings.  The  yield  of  the 
September  planting  was  also  considerably  reduced  by  the  greater 
inroads  of  weeds.  November  planting  yielded  a  decidedly  better 
quality  of  grain  than  either  earlier  or  later  plantings. 

Manner  of  Planting. — About  75  per  cent  of  the  California  grain 
crop  is  sown  broadcast ;  about  15  per  cent  is  seeded  with  machines  of 
the  Gorham  type,  which  drop  the  seed  directly  from  the  hopper  to 
the  ground  without  its  passing  through  conductor  tubes ;  and  about 
10  per  cent  is  planted  with  grain  drills.  Broadcasting  is  rapid  and 
inexpensive,  but  generally  results  in  reduced  yields.  The  Gorham 
method  is  less  satisfactory  than  drilling,  but  costs  the  same.  Barley 
may  be  broadcasted,  exclusive  of  "harrowing  in':  the  seed,  at  an 
average  cost  of  from  10  to  25  cents  per  acre ;  it  may  be  drilled,  using 
a  ten-foot  drill,  six  horses,  and  one  man,  at  an  average  cost  of  30  to  40 
cents  per  acre,  or  at  a  higher  rate  if  smaller  drills  are  used.  By 
attaching  five  ten-foot  drills  behind  a  small  tractor,  however,  the 
cost  of  drilling  may  be  reduced  to  approximately  that  of  broadcasting 
and  the  work  done  as  quickly.  The  average  increase  in  the  yield  of 
barley  induced  by  drilling  as  compared  with  broadcasting,  is  3  sacks 
(6  bushels)  per  acre.  Considering  the  cost  of  the  operation  as  prac- 
tically the  same  by  the  two  methods,  and  taking  into  account  the 
saving  in  seed  effected  by  drilling,  the  net  saving  amounts  to  from 
$3  to  $9  per  acre,  depending  upon  the  price  of  barley.  With  $6  as  a 
fair  average  the  net  saving  from  twenty-five  acres  would  equal  the 
retail  price  of  a  $150  drill. 

Among  growers,  considerable  skepticism  still  exists  concerning 
the  advantages  of  the  drilling  method,  for  the  reason  that,  rude  and 
imperfect  as  the  broadcasting  method  is,  it  may  under  favorable 
circumstances  produce  as  good  results  as  drilling.  It  seldom  does, 
however,  and  the  more  unfavorable  the  weather  and  soil  conditions 
are  the  greater  the  yield  increment  due  to  drilling.  Occasionally  dry- 
plowed  land  will  turn  up  so  rough  and  lumpy  that  the  drill  can  not 
be  operated,  and  broadcasting  of  necessity  is  the  only  recourse :  or 
again,  adobe  soils  may  be  broadcasted  while  too  wet  and  sticky  to 
permit  the  operation  of  a  drill,  but  these  are  extreme  conditions,  not 
generally  met  with  where  careful  supervision  is  given.  It  is  also  true 
that  unclean  seed,  too  foul  to  feed  through  a  drill,  may  be  easily 


MARIOUT  BARLEY 


93 


broadcasted,  but  it  would  be  a  difficult  matter  to  defend  the  practice 
on  such  grounds. 

Even  a  casual  examination  of  a  broadcasted  barley  field,  during  the 
early  stages  of  development,  will  disclose  the  reasons  for  the  greater 
productivity  induced  by  drilling.  Some  of  the  seed  will  have  been 
covered  too  deeply  and  will  have  produced  sickly  debilitated  plants, 


Fig.  15. — Plowing  under  a  cover  crop.  Soils  continuously  cropped  to  grain 
for  many  years  respond  quickly  and  profitably  to  such  treatment.  Rye,  or  a 
combination  of  rye  and  vetch  should  be  sown  with  the  first  rains  and  turned  under 
while  the  soil  is  still  moist  in  the  early  spring.  The  furrow  should  be  deep  enough 
to  completely  cover  the  vegetation,  and  the  plow  should  be  followed  closely  by.  a 
weighted  disk,  set  straight,  or  other  firming  implement.  The  land  should  then  be 
fallowed  until  planting  time  in  the  fall. 

while  much  of  it  only  partly  covered,  or  lying  on  the  surface,  will 
have  thrown  out  temporary  roots  only,  which  serve  merely  to  anchor 
the  plant  to  the  ground,  leaving  the  crown  high  and  dry  and  the 
coronal  or  permanent  roots  undeveloped  (fig.  2).  Such  plants  are 
stranded  in  dry  top  soil,  so  to  speak,  as  the  moisture  recedes  in  the 
spring,  and  either  succumb  entirety  or  produce  a  small  amount  of 
light  inferior  grain. 

Why  a  practice,  so  manifestly  indefensible  as  the  broadcasting  of 
barley  seed,  should  have  retained  its  almost  universal  popularity  for 


94  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

so  long  in  California  is  difficult  to  explain,  except  by  the  servility  of 
the  human  mind  in  the  presence  of  established  practices  or  opinions. 

Rate  of  Planting. — Available  soil  moisture  is  at  the  root  of  this 
question,  but  here,  of  course,  several  modifying  circumstances  have 
to  be  considered.  Too  much  seed  on  dry  soil  will  result  in  a  too 
rapid  depletion  of  moisture,  attended  by  stunted  plants,  short  poorly 
developed  heads,  and  pinched  kernels.  Assuming  summer  fallowing, 
fall  planting,  and  sixteen  inches  or  more  of  rain,  eighty  pounds  of 
plump  seed  drilled  per  acre  is  not  too  much.  Assuming  spring  plant- 
ing, and  otherwise  similar  conditions,  this  should  be  reduced  to  sixty 
pounds,  and  in  southern  California,  where  the  rainfall  is  less  than 
twelve  inches,  fifty  to  sixty  pounds  per  acre  is  sufficient  in  any  case. 
Irrigated  lands  may  be  planted  heavily,  but  overcrowding  should  be 
avoided. 

If  broadcasted,  these  rates  should  be  increased  25  per  cent  and 
poorly-prepared  land  should  be  planted  more  heavily  than  well- 
prepared  land.  Seed  dipped  for  smut,  even  though  it  has  stood 
several  months,  will  feed  through  the  drill  much  more  slowly  than 
the  same  seed  prior  to  treatment.  A  test  at  Davis  showed  that  White 
Australian  wheat  which  had  passed  through  the  drill  at  the  rate  of 
eighty  pounds  per  acre  previous  to  treatment,  dropped  to  seventy-two 
pounds  per  acre  after  treatment,  when  the  seed  used  had  stood  for 
several  weeks  after  dipping.  The  difference  here  is  entirely  due  to  the 
increased  bulk  of  the  seed.  The  sample  in  question  tested  fifty-nine 
pounds  per  bushel  before,  and  fifty-four  pounds  per  bushel  after 
treatment.  Based  upon  these  tests,  a  scale  which  has  been  calibrated 
for  untreated  seed,  should  be  advanced  about  15  per  cent  when  treated 
seed  is  used,  assuming  that  the  same  rate  of  seeding  is  desired,  but  more 
than  likely  a  still  greater  increase  will  be  required  in  order  to  com- 
pensate for  reduced  germination.  It  should  also  be  remembered  that 
heavy  seed  flows  more  freely  than  light  seed  of  the  same  variety,  and 
a  corresponding  adjustment  should  be  made.  A  test  at  Davis  showed 
that  Chevalier  barley  weighing  fifty  pounds  per  bushel  passed  through 
the  drill  20  per  cent  more  rapidly  than  common  (Coast)  barley,  weigh- 
ing forty-seven  pounds  per  bushel. 

It  is  almost  superfluous  to  add  that  old  or  damaged  barley  should 
be  planted  at  a  heavier  rate  than  new  barley  of  good  quality.  Badly 
thrashed  seed  is  damaged  more  in  the  process  of  treating  for  smut 
than  uninjured  seed;  and  the  use  of  such  damaged  seed  has  been  a 
fertile  source  of  trouble  in  the  past. 

Spring  Harrowing. — It  very  often  happens  that  barley  has  not 
completely  shaded  the  ground  prior  to  the  drying  and  crusting  of  the 


MARIOUT   BARLEY  95 

soil  in  the  spring.  Under  such  circumstances  the  ground  loses  its 
moisture  rapidly  and  a  hard  crust  develops  about  the  crowns  of  the 
plants.  In  dry  seasons  this  reacts  unfavorably  upon  the  development 
and  stooling  of  the  seedlings,  and  consequently  reduces  the  yield  and 
quality  of  the  grain.  The  remedy  is  to  harrow  the  standing  grain 
before  the  crust  becomes  too  thick  and  dry  to  disintegrate  readily.  If 
the  grain  has  been  drilled,  harrowing  should  be  done  at  right  angles 
to  the  direction  of  drilling.  A  common  wood-frame  spike  tooth 
harrow  is  adapted  to  the  work,  and  if  the  grain  is  beyond  the  ' '  fourth 
leaf"  little  injury  will  follow.  After  the  ground  has  become  shaded, 
harrowing  is  unnecessary,  and  for  this  reason  November  and  Decem- 
ber-planted grain  rarely  is  in  need  of  such  treatment,  and  Mariout 
requires  it  less  often  than  common  barley  (fig.  8).  Unfortunately  we 
have  no  properly  conducted  practical  experiments  to  refer  to,  which 
are  always  desirable  where  a  recommended  practice  is  new  to  a  region, 
but  numerous  confirming  instances  have  come  to  our  attention.  The 
experience  of  a  farmer  near  Tracy  is  especially  instructive.  His  field 
adjoined  the  railway  right-of-way,  and  as  a  fire  protection  he  harrowed 
out  a  twenty-foot  strip  of  grain  bordering  the  railway,  traversing  it 
several  times  with  a  spike-tooth  harrow  during  March  when  the  grain 
was  about  four  inches  high.  The  season  turned  out  to  be  a  dry  one, 
and  a  hard  crust  formed  over  the  remainder  of  the  field.  Contrary  to 
his  intention,  the  harrowed  grain  continued  to  grow  and  as  a  result 
of  the  treatment  and  the  retention  of  moisture  which  this  effected, 
it  far  exceeded  in  production  any  other  equal  area  in  the  field. 

The  common  error  in  attempting  to  practice  spring  harrowing, 
is  to  delay  the  work  until  the  crust  has  become  so  hard  that  it  can  not 
be  broken. 

The  Choice  of  Seed. — The  question  of  using  good  seed  is  of  more 
importance  than  farmers  are  generally  disposed  to  concede.  The  best 
seed  obtainable  is  generally  the  most  economical  to  use.  Desirable 
barley  seed  is  heavy,  plump,  fully  matured,  free  from  injury,  and 
true  to  variety.  Recleaning  is  necessary  to  the  production  of  seed  of 
this  character,  and  a  systematic  use  of  a  good  fanning  mill  will  do 
more  to  maintain  the  quality  of  seed  than  the  importation  of  seed 
from  other  districts.  First  get  a  good  strain  of  a  pedigreed,  high- 
producing  variety,  and  then  maintain  its  quality  by  recleaning  a 
portion  of  it  for  seed  each  year.  Careful  attention  to  these  matters 
deserves  and  would  repay  far  more  consideration  and  care  than  is 
usually  bestowed  upon  them. 

Home  Grown  vs.  Imported  Seed. — A  popular,  but  erroneous  notion 
is  that  barley  seed  "runs  out"  when  grown  continuously  on  the  same 


96 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


ground  for  a  number  of  years,  necessitating  the  importation  of  new 
seed  stocks  from  some  distant  locality.  How  this  error  has  gained 
common  credence  is  difficult  to  say ;  but  it  is  probably  another  instance 
of  an  old  accustomed  practice  which  has  been  accepted  from  generation 
to  generation  without  challenge.  The  truth  is,  that  the  longer  barley 
seed  is  grown  in  one  locality,  the  better  acclimated  it  becomes,  and  all 
that  is  necessary  to  maintain  it  good,  is  to  keep  it  pure  and  reclean 
it  thoroughly  each  year  before  planting. 


Fig.  16. — A  grain  header  at  work  on  barley  in  the  Salinas  Valley,  where  the 
high  humidity  interferes  with  the  operation  of  a  combined  harvester.  The  header 
method  is  intermediate  between  the  binder  and  the  harvester  in  point  of  efficiency. 
Grain  may  be  cut  with  the  header  before  it  is  fully  ripe,  yet  not  so  early  as  with 
the  binder,  because  it  is  necessary  to  defer  cutting  until  the  heads  are  dry  enough 
to  stack.  The  amount  of  shattering  increases  proportionately  with  the  length  of 
time  the  grain  remains  standing  in  the  field,  so  that  the  efficiency  of  the  different 
harvesting  systems  is  in  direct  ratio  with  the  time  of  cutting  possible  under  each 
system. 


HARVESTING    METHODS 

There  are  three  types  of  implements  employed  in  harvesting  small 
grains  in  California.  These  are  the  binder,  the  header,  and  the  com- 
bined harvester.  The  binder  and  the  header  serve  simply  to  cut  the 
standing  grain  preparatory  to  threshing,  while  the  combined  har- 
vester, as  its  name  implies,  combines  the  two  operations  into  one, 
heading  and  threshing  grain  in  a  single  operation. 

The  combined  harvester  or  "combine,"  as  it  is  usually  termed,  is 
a  distinctively  Californian  product,  and  was  developed  along  with  the 
bonanza  wheat  farms  at  a  time  when  wheat  production  was  under- 
going a  great  expansion,  and  the  efforts  of  the  implement  makers  were 
directed  toward  the  development  of  machinery  of  large  capacity.    The 


MARIOUT  BARLEY 


97 


gang  plow  and  the  combined  harvester  were  built  with  cutting  bases 
of  unusual  length,  and  all  implements  were  constructed  with  the  object 
of  combining  several  operations  into  one,  for  the  purpose  of  enabling 
one  man  to  cultivate  the  greatest  possible  area.  Combined  harvesters 
were  used  in  California  as  early  as  1868,  but  it  was  not  until  about 
the  year  1880  that  they  came  into  general  use.  Stationary  threshing 
machines  were  used  in  California  before  the  combined  harvester  was 


Fig.  17. — The  binder  in  operation  at  the  University  Farm.  By  this  method 
cutting  is  done  before  the  heads  are  ripe  and  brittle,  and  very  little  shattering 
results,  because  the  ripening  process  is  completed  in  the  shock  where  the  heads 
are  protected  from  the  weather. 

invented,  but  the  combine  by  virtue  of  the  greater  rapidity  and  cheap- 
ness with  which  it  performed  the  work  of  harvesting  soon  replaced 
practically  all.  other  types  of  harvesting  machinery,  except  in  the 
coastal  sections  of  the  state,  where  it  has  never  superseded  the  station- 
ary threshing  machine,  because  of  the  climatic  conditions.  Although 
approximately  85  per  cent  of  the  California  grain  crop  is  harvested 
by  the  combined-harvester  method  at  the  present  time,  there  is  a 
tendency  to  return  to  the  stationary  threshing  machine  system;  and 
more  binders  and  headers  are  being  used  now  than  formerly. 

The   use   of  the   combined   harvester   is   restricted   to   regions   of 
peculiar  climatic  conditions.     This  is  true  because  grain  must  remain 


98  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA — EXPERIMENT    STATION 

standing  in  the  field  until  it  has  reached  the  dead  ripe  stage,  and  must 
be  completely  dry  at  the  time  it  is  cut  with  the  combined  harvester. 
The  combined  harvester  will  not  handle  grain  in  the  dough  stage,  nor 
will  it  perform  its  work  satisfactorily  on  grain  which  is  slightly  moist. 
For  these  reasons  it  has  never  replaced  the  stationary  threshing 
machine  in  the  barley-producing  section  of  the  Salinas  Valley,  where 
the  humidity  is  high,  and  it  has  never  been  used  to  any  extent  east 
of  the  Rocky  Mountains,  where  showers  and  high  humidities  prevail 
during  the  ripening  period  of  grain. 

Ideal  conditions  for  the  combined  harvester  are  found  in  the  Sacra- 
mento and  San  Joaquin  valleys.  In  these  great  valleys  there  is  as  a 
rule  a  continuous  rainless  season  of  six  months,  during  which  grain 
remains  standing  in  the  field  without  deterioration  for  weeks  after  it 
has  passed  the  customary  binding  or  dough  condition. 

The  fact  that  the  successful  operation  of  the  combined  harvester 
depends  upon  the  grain  reaching  an  advanced  stage  of  ripeness 
while  standing  in  the  field,  is  a  disadvantage  to  the  system  generally, 
and  results  in  shattering  losses,  which  are  only  partly  compensated 
by  the  lower  cost  of  the  operation.  Barley  which  remains  standing 
in  the  field  until  ripe  enough  to  cut  with  a  combined  harvester  becomes 
very  brittle  and  shatters  easily.  There  is,  however,  considerable  differ- 
ence in  the  ability  of  different  varieties  of  wheat  and  barley  to  resist 
shattering.  Club  wheat,  for  example,  is  notably  tenacious  of  its  grain. 
There  are  many  varieties  of  wheat  which  surpass  the  Clubs  in  yield- 
ing ability,  and  nearly  all  of  the  soft  white  wheats  grown  in  the  Pacific 
Coast  region  are  superior  in  quality,  and  bring  higher  market  prices 
than  the  Clubs,  yet  the  single  fact  that  the  Clubs  do  not  shatter 
easily  has  made  them  desirable  wheats  wherever  the  combined  har- 
vester is  used. 

Since  barley  has  become  California's  leading  cereal,  the  shattering 
problem  has  become  more  serious  than  it  formerly  was,  and  the 
aggregate  shattering  losses  are  doubtless  considerably  higher,  because 
barley  shatters  more  readily  than  wheat,  and  no  barley  varieties  yet 
grown,  can  compare  with  the  Club  wheats  in  non-shattering  properties. 

A  peculiarity  of  the  climate  of  the  Sacramento  and  San  Joaquin 
valleys,  which  is  partly  responsible  for  the  unusually  high  shattering 
losses,  is  the  frequent  occurrence  of  strong  northwest  winds  during 
the  harvest  season.  It  is  not  unusual  for  a  north  wind  to  spring  up 
while  harvesting  is  in  progress,  resulting  in  a  decrease  in  yield  of 
from  10  to  50  per  cent.  Frequently  fields  which  were  yielding  from 
twelve  to  fifteen  sacks  per  acre  before  the  occurrence  of  a  "norther" 


MARIOUT   BARLEY 


99 


yield  but  five  or  six  sacks  per  acre  after  the  wind,  showing  that  the 
wind  has  whipped  out  as  much  or  more  than  half  of  the  grain.  In 
situations  where  a  portion  of  a  field  is  protected  from  the  force  of 
the  wind  on  the  north  by  a  row  of  trees  or  group  of  buildings,  the 
effect  of  the  wind-break  may  be  observed  for  many  rods  to  leeward 
by  the  absence  of  shattering.  That  the  "northers"  are  of  frequent 
occurrence  during  harvest  time  is  proved  by  the  subjoined  tables 
taken   from   the   report   of   Mr.    Thos.    G.   Blair,    Assistant   Weather 


!^&- 

d»4       & 

^QSP 

^n? 

~--iJ™^ 

.    - 

h 

'ft  ft1"-' 5  A;^'';—  i^Wll 

rT^^7^l 

77 

' 

-  -  W-<*J 

^j      m'      ~f%       *          IHfrljF^f  ^VAEJn1^^  ^ 

' 

w\  ,/:■'         W"                                                ,       I^^^Hrani 

wK^. 

Fig.  18. — The  combined  harvester  was  developed  in  California  in  about  1868. 
To  within  recent  years  these  implements  have  been  propelled  by  horse  and  mule 
power,  but  are  now  equipped  with  auxiliary  gas  engines  and  either  drawn  by, 
or  mounted  on,  track-laying  tractors.  It  cuts  and  threshes  standing  grain  at  a 
single  operation,  but  is  limited  in  its  use  to  grain  which  is  dead  ripe  and  thor- 
oughly dry.  It  is  efficient  as  a  machine,  but  its  defect  lies  in  the  fact  that  grain 
often  shatters  badlv  before  it  can  be  used. 


Observer,  dated  at  Sacramento,  Calif.,  April  20,  1909.  The  observa- 
tions were  made  at  Sacramento  and  no  wind  which  did  not  show  a 
maximum  velocity  of  fifteen  miles  per  hour  or  more  was  considered  a 
"norther.'  The  tables  cover  the  period  from  1902  to  1908,  inclu- 
sive, and  constitute  the  only  complete  record  which  we  have  for  wind 
directions,  durations  and  velocities. 

Summarizing  these  figures  it  is  found  that  during  the  month  of 
June,  which  is  the  grain  harvest  month  in  California,  two  ' '  northers ' ' 
on  the  average,  moving  with  a  velocity  of  about  twenty  miles  per  hour 
and  lasting  from  two  to  three  days  each,  have  occurred  during  the 
period  considered. 


100 


UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 


Table  14. 

Year 
January... 


-Duration  of  Northers  (in  Days),  Sacramento,  Calif.,  1902-1908. 


1902  1903  1904  1905  1906  1907  1908 

2  0  0  0  10  0 

February 0  4,3  0  1  0  2  2 

March 2,4  2  3  2,3  2  2  3,2,3 

April 1,3  3,3,2  5,2  2,1  5  4,1  3,3,1,1,2 

May 3  4,4,2  2,4,1,5,2  1,1,3  1  2,1,5  2,4,2,3 

June 4,2  3,1  3,2,3  0  3,3  4  1,2,3 

July 0  3,1  1  6  0  0  0 

August 112  0  0  2  3 

September 3,4,2  3,2  4  2,2  2,2  1  4 

October 12  4  5,1,2,2  5,1,10  4  2,3,2 

November 0  0  0  4,2  4,3,2,2  5,2,2,1  0 

December 0  0  0  4,3  0  0  0 

Annual  Duration 33  44  46  47  46  38  51 


Table  15. — Maximum  Wind  Velocity  and  Direction  of  Northers 


Year  1902  1903 

January 33  n.  0  

February 0  40  nw 

March 28  nw.  15  nw 

April 23  nw.  35  nw 

May 45  nw.  40  nw 

June 28  nw.  15  nw 

July 0  40  nw 

August 18  nw.  15  nw 

September 32  nw.  40  nw 

October 24  nw.  24  n. 

November 15  nw.  0  

December 0  0  

Annual 45  nw.  40  nw 


1904 
18  n. 

0  

15  nw. 
22  nw. 
36  nw. 
30  nw. 
15  nw. 
15  nw. 
16nw. 
24  nw. 

0  

0  

36  nw. 


1905 

0  

16  n. 
20  nw. 
30  nw. 
36  nw. 

0  

15  nw. 

0  

20  nw. 
38  nw. 
40  n. 
27  nw. 
38  nw. 


1906 
29  nw 

0  

16  n. 

35  nw 

15  nw 

16  nw 

0  

0  

22  nw 
33  nw 

36  n. 
0  

36  n. 


1907 

0  

20  nw. 

15  nw. 
31  nw. 
25  nw. 

16  nw. 
0  

19  nw. 
15  nw. 
29  nw. 
28  nw. 

0  

31  nw. 


1908 

0  

26  nw. 

33  nw. 
36  nw. 
29  nw. 
22  nw. 

0  

28  nw. 
24  nw. 

34  nw. 
0  

b 

36  nw. 


Heavy  shattering  losses  are  the  rule  wherever  the  combined  har- 
vester is  used,  but  the  actual  loss  in  any  specific  case  may  vary  widely, 
depending  chiefly  upon  the  frequency  and  velocity  of  the  wind  dur- 
ing the  ripening  period.  Some  farmers  contend  that  a  certain 
amount  of  shattering  is  desirable  because  the  stubble  contains  enough 
grain  to  provide  good  pasturage  for  cattle,  sheep  and  hogs,  and  that 
the  grain  which  is  not  gleaned  by  the  stock  may  then  be  harrowed 
into  the  ground  in  lieu  of  sowing  seed  for  the  succeeding  crop.  This 
is  the  "volunteering"  system  of  grain  farmers  which  is  extensively 
practiced  in  certain  parts  of  California  and  has  been  possible  because 
of  the  wastefulness  of  the  combined  harvester  system.  As  many  as 
seven  successive  crops  have  been  produced  by  this  method  without 
reseeding  the  land.  Barley  stubble  left  by  the  combined  harvester 
rents  for  from  10  cents  to  $1  per  acre  for  pasture,  the  specific  rate 


MARIOUT   BARLEY  101 

depending  upon  the  amount  of  shattered  grain  it  contains  and  the 
general  scarcity  of  feed.  In  this  connection  it  is  a  significant  fact 
that  stubble  land  left  by  the  binder  is  generally  considered  valueless 
as  pasture  land  because  it  contains  practically  no  shattered  grain  for 
stock  to  glean.  Both  practices — pasturing  stubble,  and  voluntering — 
are  of  doubtful  advantage  to  the  farmer  and  are  at  best  poor  justi- 
fication for  the  wastefulness  of  the  combined  harvester  system. 

Attempts  to  reduce  shattering  losses,  particularly  in  the  more 
exposed  situations,  are  frequently  made  by  resorting  to  the  practice 
of  dragging  down  standing  grain  before  it  has  reached  the  critical 
dead  ripe  stage.  This  operation,  which  is  accomplished  by  dragging 
a  plank  over  the  field,  is  designed  to  flatten  the  grain  sufficiently  so 
that  the  heads  will  lie  close  to  the  ground,  sheltered  from  the  wind 
during  the  ripening  period.  It  also  serves  the  useful  purpose  of  lodg- 
ing the  grain  uniformly,  so  that  it  may  be  more  easily  harvested  than 
if  allowed  to  lodge  naturally.  That  such  drastic  treatment  is  con- 
sidered necessary  is  in  itself  evidence  of  the  seriousness  of  the  shat- 
tering problem.  While  the  dragging-down  of  grain  is  considered 
helpful  in  reducing  shattering  and  preventing  excessive  losses,  the 
benefits  of  the  practice  are  largely  offset  by  the  losses  incurred  incident 
to  the  dragging  process,  and  by  the  additional  fact  that  much  of  the 
grain  is  not  picked  up  by  the  harvester  because  the  sickle  of  the 
machine  cuts  much  of  the  bent-over  straw  twice,  leaving  the  head  on 
the  ground. 

The  grain  binder  system  of  harvesting  largely  eliminates  shatter- 
ing losses,  because  by  this  method  grain  may  be  cut  before  it  has 
become  dead  ripe.  Grain  is  customarily  cut  with  the  binder  while  the 
kernels  are  in  the  "dough.'  At  this  stage  of  development  the  heads 
are  still  somewhat  sappy,  so  to  speak,  and  not  easily  shattered.  The 
ripening  process  is  completed  in  the  shock  or  stack  and  the  ripened 
grain  is  taken  to  the  threshing  machine  tightly  bound  in  the  bundle, 
so  that  at  no  time  during  the  process  is  the  ripened  grain  exposed  to 
the  wind. 

The  header  method  of  harvesting  is  intermediate  between  the  com- 
bined harvester  and  the  binder  in  point  of  efficiency.  Grain  may  be 
cut  with  the  header  before  it  is  fully  ripe,  yet  not  so  early  as  with 
the  binder,  because  it  is  necessary  to  defer  cutting  until  the  heads  are 
dry  enough  to  stack  without  danger  of  heating  and  spoiling. 

Grain  may  safely  be  cut  with  the  binder  from  a  week  to  ten  days 
earlier  than  with  the  header,  and  from  two  to  three  weeks  earlier 
than  with  the  combined  harvester.  The  amount  of  shattering  increases 
with  the  length  of  time  the  grain  remains  standing  in  the  field,  so 


102  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

that  the  relative  efficiency  of  the  three  systems  is  correlated  with  the 
time  of  cutting  under  each  system. 

The  comparative  efficiency  of  the  binder  and  combined  harvester 
sj^stems  of  harvesting  was  strikingly  illustrated  during  the  1915 
harvest  season,  by  the  experience  of  a  farmer  near  Madera,  who  used 
both  methods  in  harvesting  his  crop,  under  conditions  which  admitted 
of  direct  comparison.  Adjoining  fields  of  barley  were  harvested, 
one  with  the  binder,  the  other  with  the  combined  harvester,  and 
although  the  two  fields  were  identical  in  all  respects  and  promised  to 
yield  the  same  amount  of  grain  per  acre,  the  field  cut  with  the  binder 
returned  twenty-two  sacks  per  acre,  while  the  one  cut  with  the  com- 
bined harvester  returned  only  fifteen  sacks  per  acre — a  difference  of 
seven  sacks  per  acre,  amounting  to  about  30  per  cent  of  the  entire  crop 
in  favor  of  the  binder  system. 

During  the  1915  harvest  season  measurements  were  made  at  Davis 
to  ascertain  accurately  the  losses  sustained  through  shattering  incident 
to  the  use  of  the  combined  harvester,  and  the  results  obtained  talty 
closely  with  those  of  the  Madera  farmer.  Field  No.  2,  consisting  of 
108.87  acres,  was  selected  for  the  experiment.  The  field  was  sown  to 
Beldi  barley  in  the  fall  of  1914.  On  the  21st  of  June,  1915,  the  crop 
was  cut  with  the  combined  harvester.  The  machine  employed  was  an 
itinerant  machine  of  a  common  type  and  was  engaged  in  harvesting 
grain  in  the  neighborhood  at  the  flat  contract  rate  of  $75  per  day. 
By  this  method  of  harvesting  the  field  yielded  at  the  rate  of  24% 
sacks  of  barley  per  acre,  but  the  stubble  contained  much  shattered 
grain  and  it  was  evident  that  a  much  higher  yield  would  have  resulted 
if  a  more  efficient  method  of  harvesting  had  been  employed.  Immedi- 
ately after  the  harvest  a  careful  survey  was  made  of  the  entire  field, 
and  three  plots,  each  representing  an  average  condition  with  respect 
to  the  amount  of  grain  remaining  on  the  ground,  were  located  in 
various  parts  of  the  field.  Spots  where  the  grain  had  lodged  and  the 
loss  of  grain  was  consequently  high,  were  not  included  in  the  average. 
The  calculated  loss  per  acre,  based  upon  the  weight  of  grain  collected 
from  these  plots  is  conservative,  and  is  thought  to  be  well  below  the 
actual  loss.  The  results  of  these  determinations  are  recorded  in 
table  16. 

The  loss  of  grain  in  this  instance  averaged  6.62  sacks  of  110  pounds 
each  per  acre;  that  is,  the  combined  harvester  recovered  24.5  sacks 
per  acre  out  of  a  possible  31.12  sacks  per  acre,  failing  to  recover  21.2 
per  cent  of  the  crop. 

The  extravagance  of  this  system  is  generally  admitted,  but  it  has 
retained  its  popularity  in  California  because  it  has  been  practically 


MARIOUT   BARLEY 


103 


indispensible  under  the  extensive  system  of  grain  farming  practiced. 
But  as  the  grain  ranches  are  being  reduced  in  size,  and  the  value 
of  land  is  increasing,  the  question  of  efficiency  of  production  and 
higher  net  returns  per  acre  is  receiving  more  thought. 

The  production  of  barley  at  a  fair  profit  on  land  valued  at  $100 
per  acre  is  rarely  accomplished  in  this  state  under  present  methods 
of  farming  and  with  pre-war  prices.     Investigations  prior  to  the  war 


Fig.  19. — The  small  combined  harvester  made  its  first  appearance  in  California 
in  about  1917,  where  it  is  estimated  that  about  800  were  in  use  in  1919.  It  is 
equipped  with  an  auxiliary  engine  and  may  be  propelled  by  a  small  tractor  or 
from  eight  to  twelve  horses.  It  is  capable  of  cutting  and  threshing  from  fifteen 
to  twenty  acres  per  day.  From  the  standpoint  of  efficiency  it  is  in  no  way 
superior  to  the  larger  machines,  but  because  of  its  smaller  size,  and  cost,  it  is 
better  adapted  to  smaller  acreages,  and  enables  the  small  producer  to  own  his 
' '  outfit ' '  and  makes  him  independent  of  the  itinerant  machines  which  are  difficult 
to  obtain  at  the  time  they  are  most  needed. 

showed  that  the  greater  part  of  the  grain  land  in  California  valued 
at  $100  an  acre  or  more  was  returning  less  than  4  per  cent  interest 
on  the  capital  invested  when  devoted  to  the  production  of  barley. 
E.  C.  Chilcott,  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Agriculture,  after 
an  extensive  series  of  investigations  in  grain  production  in  the  great 


Table  16. — Grain  Left  in  Stubble  After  Harvesting  with  the 

Combined  Harvester 

Value  of  grain  re- 
Grain  remaining   Grain*  remaining    maining  on  ground 
on  ground  in  on  ground  in         at  $1.10  per  sack 

Plot  lbs.  per  acre  sacks  per  acre  (pre-war  normal  price) 

1  506.0  4.60  $5.06 

2  848.0  7.70  8.47 

3 831.6  7.56  8.31 

Average 6.62  8.28 

*An  average  sack  of  barley  weighs  110  pounds. 


104  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

plains  area  of  the  United  States,  concluded  that  a  reduction  in  the 
cost  of  production  is  a  more  important  factor  in  determining  profits 
in  grain  farming  than  increasing  yields  by  culture  methods.  But  this 
conclusion  does  not  necessarily  hold  under  California  conditions.  In 
this  state  the  cost  of  grain  production  has  been  reduced  below  the  most 
profitable  point,  sacrificing  yield  to  such  an  extent  that  the  margin 
of  profit  has  been  almost  eliminated. 

The  combined  harvester  has  been  an  important  factor  in  reducing 
the  cost  of  producing  grain,  but  at  a  great  sacrifice  of  yield.  There 
is  a  growing  sentiment  among  farmers  that  the  binder  system  is  more 
economical  as  measured  by  the  net  returns  per  acre.  That  this  senti- 
ment exists  is  manifest  from  the  fact  that  the  number  of  binders  used 
in  this  state  is  constantly  increasing,  and  it  is  not  unusual  to  find  all 
three  types  of  harvesting  machinery — binders,  headers,  and  "com- 
bines"— working  within  sight  of  one  another. 

Because  of  the  varying  conditions  under  which  grain  is  grown 
and  harvested  in  California,  a  comparison  of  the  various  harvesting 
systems,  from  a  money  standpoint,  which  would  be  applicable  to 
the  state  as  a  whole  is  impossible.  But  the  general  relation  which 
exists  between  the  binder  and  combined-harvester  systems  is  shown 
for  one  specific  instance  in  table  17.  The  basis  of  this  calculation  are 
the  data  collected  at  Davis  and  previously  referred  to  (table  17). 

Table  17. — Average  Cost  of  Production  and  Net  Profit  for  Producing  Barley 
in  California.     The  Combined  Harvestsr  vs.  the  Grain  Binder 

Combined  Grain 

Harvester  Binder 

cost  cost 

per  acre4  per  acre4 

JPlowing  and  harrowing  with  tractor  (usual  contract  price) $1.75  $1.75 

deeding  with  broadcast  seeder .15  .15 

Seed 1.00  1.00 

harrowing  in  seed 25  .25 

harvesting  with  combined  harvester  (contract  price  for  243^  sack 

crop) 3.40         

Piling  sacks  in  field  at  1  cent  each 24         

Cutting  with  self-binder  (contract  price  for  30  sack  crop) 1 .  00 

Shocking  in  the  field .25 

Binder  twine  (30  sack  crop) .30 

threshing,  including  hauling  from  shock 4.30 

Twenty-five  sacks  at  83^  cents  each 2. 10         

Thirty-one  sacks  at  8^  cents  each 2.71 

Hauling  five  miles,  10  horses*    1  man,  8  tons  per  load,  20  miles 

per  day 66  .81 

Weighing  and  storing  in  warehouse  to  Jan.  1  at  75  cents  ton 1.01  1.24 

1  The  items  of  plowing,  seeding,  harrowing,  harvesting,  binding,  and  thresh- 
ing, are  charged  at  average  contract  prices  and  are  subject  to  variation. 


MARIOUT   BARLEY  105 

TABLE   17. —  (Continued)  Combined      Grain 

Harvester  Binder 

cost  cost 

per  acre4  per  acre4 

Field  insurance  90  cents  per  $100.00  value,  2  mo 24  .30 

Insurance  in  warehouse  3%  on  $1.00  per  sack  value 73  .90 

Interest  at  8%  on  1,000  acres  at  $125.00  per  acre;  10  horses,  $1750; 

implements  and  wagons,  etc.,  $600  and  buildings  $2,000 10.34  10.34 

Depreciation  on  equipment,   stock,   implements,    10%  and  on 

buildings,  5% 33  .33 

Incidental  expenses — selling,  etc 50  .50 

Total  cost  of  production  per  acre 22.79  26. 13 

2Gross  value  of  243^  sacks  of  barley  at  $1.10  per  sack 26.95         

2Gross  value  of  30. 12  sacks  of  barley  at  $1.10  per  sack 33. 13 

3Net  returns  per  acre,  using  the  combined  harvester 4.16         

3Net  returns  per  acre,   using   binder  and  stationary    threshing 

machine 7.00 

3Net  saving  per  acre  due  to  the  use  of  grain  binder $2.84         

2  A  total  yield  of  31.12  sacks  of  barley  is  assumed  in  each  instance,  but  the 
amounts  recovered  are  24.5  and  30.12  sacks  per  acre,  respectively,  for  the  com- 
bined harvester  and  the  binder.  The  shattering  loss  of  6.62  sacks  per  acre  for 
the  combined  harvester  is  based  upon  the  field  determinations  at  Davis  previously 
quoted.  The  shattering  loss  of  one  sack  per  acre  for  binder,  including  loss  in 
threshing,  is  based  upon  observations  also  made  at  the  University  Farm  on  plots 
cut  with  the  binder. 

The  total  yield  of  31.12  sacks  of  barley  per  acre  used  in  the  calculation  is 
somewhat  higher  than  the  general  average  for  the  state,  but  is  a  yield  which  good 
farmers,  under  a  system  of  biennial  cropping,  on  good  land,  frequently  obtain, 
and  is  used  here  principally  because  it  is  the  yield  upon  which  the  actual  shatter- 
ing determinations  were  made.  Although  it  may  be  held  that  the  shattering  loss 
was  unusually  high  in  this  case  because  the  yield  was  above  average,  observations 
made  in  various  parts  of  the  state  would  indicate  that  the  contrary  is  true,  and 
that  the  percent  of  shattering  is  usually  higher  in  the  case  of  the  lower  yields, 
except  where  too  thick  seeding  has  resulted  in  overcrowding  and  lodging. 

3  The  net  return  is  the  amount  remaining  after  deducting  all  charges,  plus 
8  per  cent  interest  on  capital  invested,  from  the  gross  receipts. 

In  this  instance  the  difference  in  cost  of  production  amounts  to  $3.34  per  acre 
in  favor  of  the  combined  harvester.  But  the  difference  in  value  of  the  crop 
amounts  to  $6.18  per  acre  in  favor  of  the  binder,  leaving  a  balance  of  $2.84  per 
acre  in  favor  of  the  binder  system. 

*  Prices  and  costs  are  taken  at  pre-war  average  normal  rates. 

A  second  problem,  more  vital  to  the  grain  farmers  of  California 
than  the  shattering  problem,  is  that  of  developing  an  adequate  system 
of  crop  rotation.  This  is  a  question  upon  which  harvesting  methods 
have  a  direct  bearing.  As  previously  stated,  grain  may  be  cut  with 
the  binder,  removed  from  the  field  and  stacked,  from  two  to  three 
weeks  before  it  is  ripe  enough  to  cut  with  the  combined  harvester. 
This  early  removal  affords  an  opportunity  to  follow  the  grain  crop, 
with  some  quick-maturing  summer  crop  the  same  season.  Under 
favorable  circumstances,  beans,  cowpeas,  Indian  corn,  grain  sorghums, 
or  Sudan  grass  may  be  planted  after  the  removal  of  the  grain  crop 
late  in  May  or  early  in  June,  and  matured  in  the  autumn.    There  is 


106  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

much  land  in  California  where  succession  cropping  of  this  character 
is  feasible. 

A  third  problem  of  considerable  moment  to  the  California  grain 
farmer,  is  the  control  of  weeds.  The  weeds  most  common  to  the  grain 
fields  of  the  state  in  the  order  of  frequency  of  occurrence,  as  deter- 
mined by  the  analysis  of  200  samples  of  grain  from  various  parts  of 
the  state,  are  as  follows:  wild  oat  (Avena  fatuw  and  A.  harbata), 
darnel  (Lolium  temulentum) ,  buckthorn  (Amsinckia  intermedia), 
tarweed  (Hemizonia  sp.),  canary  grass  (Phalaris  puradoxa),  and 
mustard  (Brassioa  oampestris) .  Sweet  clover  (Melilotus  indica),  wild 
radish  (Raphcmus  saiivus  and  R.  raphanistrum) ,  Napa  thistle  {Cen- 
taurea  solstitialis) ,  and  chess  (Bromus  hordeaceous  and  B.  secalinus), 
are  also  troublesome  in  certain  localities.  Under  the  binder  system 
many  of  these  weeds  are  cut  before  they  have  ripened  seed;  under 
the  combined  harvester  system,  they  not  only  ripen  seed,  but  many 
of  them  ripen  seed  and  drop  it  upon  the  ground  before  the  crop  is 
ready  for  harvesting. 

DIGEST 

1.  More  than  99  per  cent  of  all  barley  grown  in  California  is  of 
the  "Coast"  or  common  variety. 

2.  Extensive  experiments  at  the  University  Farm  have  shown  that 
other  varieties  are  more  productive  than  "Coast"  under  special  cir- 
cumstances. 

3.  Mariout  barley,  an  Egyptian  importation,  is  a  better  variety 
than  "Coast"  barley  for  the  interior  valleys  of  California. 

4.  There  were  3000  acres  of  Mariout  grown  within  a  radius  of 
twenty  miles  of  the  University  Farm  at  Davis  in  1919. 

5.  Mariout  is  more  drouth-resistant  than  common  barley. 

6.  Mariout  succeeds  better  than  common  barley  when  spring 
planted. 

7.  Mariout  uses  less  soil  moisture  than  common  barley. 

8.  Mariout  shatters  less  than  common  barley. 

9.  Mariout  is  well  adapted  to  the  Tulare  Lake  region  and  escapes 
harvest  floods  by  ripening  two  weeks  in  advance  of  common  barley. 

10.  Mariout  is  well  adapted  to  double  cropping  because  it  occupies 
the  land  for  a  shorter  period  than  common  barley. 

11.  Mariout  produces  less,  but  a  better  quality  of  hay  than  com- 
mon barley. 

12.  Mariout  does  not  thrive  so  well  as  common  barley  in  cool 
mountainous  districts. 


MARIOUT  BARLEY  107 

13.  Mariout  does  not  stand  winter-flooding  so  well  as  common 
barley,  but  Tennessee  Winter  barley  yields  better  than  either  under 
such  circumstances. 

14.  Mariout  develops  more  rapidly  than  common  barley. 

15.  Mariout  ripens  from  ten  to  twenty  days  in  advance  of  common 
barley. 

16.  Mariout  produces  a  higher  percentage  of  grain  and  a  lower 
percentage  of  straw  by  weight  than  common  barley. 

17.  Mariout  may  be  easily  distinguished  from  common  barley  by 
numerous  minor  differences. 

18.  Mariout  has  a  higher  average  yield  record  than  common  barley 
in  a  nine-year  test  at  the  University  Farm. 

19.  Mariout  has  the  highest  individual  yield  record  of  any  variety 
tested  at  Davis.  It  produced  126.6  bushels  (63.35  sacks)  per  acre  in 
1911. 

20.  Mariout  has  decisively  outyielded  common  barley  in  dry  years. 

21.  Mariout  has  decisively  outyielded  common  barley  in  spring 
planting  tests. 

22.  Mariout  has  outyielded  common  barley  in  a  four-year  test  at 
the  United  States  Plant  Introduction  Garden  at  Chico. 

23.  Mariout  has  been  outyielded  by  common  barley  in  a  five-year 
test  at  Highmore,  S.  D.,  excepting  in  drouth  years. 

24.  Mariout  has  outyielded  common  barley  in  an  eight-year  test 
at  Moccasin,  Montana. 

25.  Mariout  has  outyielded  common  barley  in  seven  out  of  the 
eight  years  that  it  has  been  grown  at  Moro,  Oregon. 

26.  Mariout  has  outyielded  common  barley  in  a  three-year  test  at 
Aberdeen,  Idaho. 

27.  Mariout  has  been  outyielded  in  a  five-year  test  in  the  frosty 
climate  of  Burns,  Oregon. 

28.  Mariout  has  been  more  productive  than  common  barley  at 
five  of  the  seven  western  experiment  stations  where  it  has  been  grown 
and  has  outyielded  common  barley  at  all  of  them  in  drouth  years. 

29.  Mariout  equals  common  barley  in  malting  value. 

30.  Biennial  cropping  with  barley  is  more  profitable  than  annual 
cropping  where  the  seasonal  rainfall  is  less  than  sixteen  inches. 

31.  Annual  cropping  with  barley  is  more  profitable  than  biennial 
cropping  when  the  annual  rainfall  exceeds  eighteen  inches. 

32.  Disking  the  stubble  immediately  after  harvest  is  an  important 
aid  in  conserving  soil  moisture. 

33.  Fall  plowing  in  California  should  be  from  eight  to  ten  inches 
in  depth. 


108  UNIVERSITY    OF    CALIFORNIA EXPERIMENT    STATION 

34.  Spring  plowing  in  California  should  be  from  four  to  five  inches 
in  depth. 

35.  The  fallow  should  be  established  early  in  the  spring. 

36.  Dry  summer  plowing  is  detrimental. 

37.  The  surface  mulch  should  be  granular. 

38.  The  weed  cutter  should  be  supplemented  by  the  chisel  on 
summer  fallow. 

39.  The  disk  harrow  is  not  an  efficient  weeder  and  pulverizes  the 
soil  too  finely. 

40.  Where  grain  is  grown  continuously  the  land  should  be  disked 
after  harvest  and  plowed  twice  prior  to  planting;  once  deeply  in 
November  and  once  shallowly  a  few  weeks  later. 

41.  Spring  plowing  should  be  supplemented  by  disking  to  settle 
the  soil. 

42.  Fall  (November-December)  planting  is  preferable  to  spring 
(February-March)   planting. 

43.  No  advantage  is  to  be  gained  by  planting  prior  to  November  15. 

44.  Early  planted  barley  produces  the  longest  straw,  the  longest 
and  best  filled  heads,  the  heaviest  grain  and  the  highest  yields. 

45.  The  number  of  days  required  to  ripen  is  diminished  as  the 
planting  date  is  delayed. 

46.  September  plantings  rusted  more  and  were  weedier  than  later 
plantings. 

47.  The  yield  of  barley  may  generally  be  increased  3  sacks  (6 
bushels)  per  acre  by  drilling  as  compared  with  broadcasting. 

48.  The  rate  of  planting  barley  depends  chiefly  upon  the  moisture 
supply. 

49.  Grain  treated  for  smut  flows  through  the  drill  more  slowly 
than  untreated  grain. 

50.  Heavy  grain  flows  through  the  drill  more  rapidly  than  light 
grain. 

51.  Treated  grain  should  be  planted  more  thickly  than  untreated 
grain. 

52.  Grain  should  be  harrowed  in  the  spring  to  prevent  crusting. 

53.  Plant  heavy  recleaned  seed,  of  a  high  producing  strain  true 
to  variety,  and  free  from  injury. 

54.  Use  home-grown  seed  in  preference  to  seed  imported  from  a 
distance. 

55.  The  "combined  harvester"  is  limited  in  its  use  to  regions 
of  low  humidity,  and  where  rain  does  not  occur  during  the  harvest 
season. 


MARIOUT  BARLEY  109 

56.  Grain  must  remain  standing  in  the  field  until  it  is  dead  ripe 
before  it  may  be  cut  with  the  combined  harvester. 

57.  On  an  average,  two  strong  north  winds  occur  during  the  har- 
vest month  of  June  in  the  Sacramento  Valley. 

58.  Ripe  grain  shatters  badly  when  exposed  to  these  winds. 

59.  The  average  shattering  loss  of  barley  where  the  combined 
harvester  is  used  is  about  6.56  sacks  or  13  bushels  per  acre. 

60.  Shattering  losses  may  be  eliminated  by  the  use  of  the  self- 
binder  which  cuts  the  grain  while  in  the  dough  and  too  sappy  to 
shatter. 

61.  It  cost  before  the  war  on  an  average  of  $22.79  per  acre  to 
produce  and  sell  an  acre  of  barley  using  the  combined  harvester 
system. 

62.  It  cost  before  the  war  on  an  average  of  $26.13  to  produce  and 
sell  an  acre  of  barley  using  the  binder  system. 

63.  The  gross  value  of  the  average  crop  per  acre  produced  under 
the  combined  harvester  system  is  $26.95.  That  produced  under  the 
binder  system  is  worth  $33.13. 

64.  The  average  net  saving  per  acre  due  to  the  use  of  the  grain 
binder  is  $2.84,  under  pre-war  conditions. 


